ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Transport Services (Yorkshire and London)

Barry Sheerman: What the average spend per head of population on transport services was in (a) Yorkshire and (b) London in the last 12 months.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Treasury estimates that identifiable public expenditure on transport in 2012-13, the most recent year for which full figures are available, was £246 per head in Yorkshire and the Humber and £545 per head in London.

Barry Sheerman: When it comes to statistics, I tend to trust the Institute for Public Policy Research and the House of Commons Library more than I do the Department. The last time IPPR North looked at the figures on infrastructure spending, it was approximately £2,500 per capita in London and £500 in the north-east. Infrastructure investment is desperately needed outside London. Why can the Secretary of State not make a commitment? He has his heart in the north. Why does he not do something about it?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman can use whichever statistics and figures he wishes. I, too, have asked for other figures. In 2009-10, the spend for Yorkshire and the Humber was £283 per head and £754 per head in London. I am pleased that under this Government transport spending in the north has gone up from 38% to 45%. It is important to make the point that the Kings Cross station development and the Alexandra Palace to Finsbury Park six-tracking are allocated to London spending, but the benefits will be enjoyed by all east coast main line users. It is not always possible to put the value of spending down to certain parts of the country.

Andrew Jones: We have seen good progress on rail investment, particularly in the north. What impact does the Secretary of State think HS2 will have on the local economy in Yorkshire?

Patrick McLoughlin: HS2 is vital for the long-term capacity of the rail network. We have seen a massive increase in patronage, both in passengers and freight, and I welcome that. If we are to see that continue to grow, we have to increase capacity.

Diane Abbott: The spend in London reflects the importance of transport to London. Even as we speak, millions of Londoners are struggling to work because of the dispute. We know that the majority of Londoners do not want every ticket office closed down. What is the Secretary of State doing to make the Mayor of London negotiate with the RMT?

Patrick McLoughlin: The other day I heard the leader of the RMT say that his holiday last week was planned 11 months ago. Presumably, when he called the strike date, he knew when his holiday was. The least he could have done was to abandon his holiday before the strike action and be in the country, ready to negotiate. I am waiting for the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members to condemn this outrageous strike action, which is causing nothing but misery to millions of people who work in London. They should condemn it, as I do.

Cheryl Gillan: The spend on transport services in Yorkshire and London must also include the compensation paid to people adversely affected by services such as HS2. When are the Government going to pull their finger out and announce the compensation package for my constituents and others affected up and down the country, and let them know what they can expect to get for their properties which are being rendered worthless by this scheme?

Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend knows that I take the issue of compensation incredibly seriously. We promised to consult again on this and we have done that. I will attempt to come forward with the conclusions of that consultation as soon as possible. I am in no doubt about the problems faced by many people on the proposed route, and I take those responsibilities very seriously indeed.

Dennis Skinner: Is it not a fact that it takes two sides to create industrial action? The problem with the Tory Front Bench is that they dare not attack Boris Johnson for not conducting talks, because half of the Tory MPs want Boris Johnson to be their next leader. That is the reason.

Mr Speaker: On transport services between Yorkshire and London.

Patrick McLoughlin: I will try to stay in order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says it takes two to talk, but if one of the main leaders is out of the country the week before—Rio Bob, I think we should call him—then it is difficult to have those conversations.

Andrew Bridgen: The main cheerleader for HS2 in the midlands has consistently been the Birmingham chamber of commerce. We now discover it received £14,400 from HS2 for the period between September 2013 and August 2014 in so-called patronage fees. It has always been my understanding that patrons provide funding, not receive payment as an inducement. Will my right hon. Friend point out what other organisations have received similar patronage fees from HS2 for supporting this project?

Patrick McLoughlin: What matters is that HS2 is of fundamental importance not just to Birmingham, but to Manchester and all our other northern cities. It is a very important project that deserves the support of the House, but I understand that people who have the route going through their constituencies have big problems, and I will always meet colleagues to discuss them.

Rail Network (Wi-fi)

Sheryll Murray: What steps he is taking to increase the availability of wi-fi on the UK rail network.

Patrick McLoughlin: I fully recognise the importance of good mobile services for passengers on board trains. We have met the rail industry and secured its agreement to roll out improvements to mobile services across the rail network, starting this year. We expect significant improvements across key routes, starting with comprehensive coverage achieved by 2019. Network Rail and train operators are working jointly to fund and deliver the improvements based on collaborations with mobile network operators.

Sheryll Murray: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that my constituents have trains that are running with adequate seating so that people can use the wi-fi?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will say something in topical questions about the appalling situation faced by Devon and Cornwall MPs as regards the rail service in their areas. I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. I met her and other Members last night to discuss the situation and its effect on their constituencies, and I will be saying a little more later on.

Ben Bradshaw: While good wi-fi is important for rail travellers, the trains need to be running in the first place, so I will invite the Secretary of State, if he does not mind, to say a little more about what he is doing to ensure that this vital main line into the south-west is reopened as quickly as possible and about what he will do in the long-term to help deal with the vulnerability of the line at Dawlish?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am trying to keep in order by sticking to the issue of wi-fi, but I well understand the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who came to see me last night, with Robin Gisby, the managing director of Network Rail, to talk about the situation at Dawlish and how it has basically cut off services to Devon and Cornwall. I have not yet had the full engineering report, because it has not been possible to get it, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am working with Network Rail to restore the service as quickly as possible and to carry out a more vigorous review of some of the alternatives available.

Mr Speaker: As the Clerk Assistant has just pointed out to me, Members’ approach to Question 2 might best be described as “broadband”.

Andrew George: On the same theme, it is important to recognise that to have a resilient wi-fi service on our rail service, we need to have a resilient
	rail service. In view of the Secretary of State’s earlier reply, does he not accept that if we are to invest properly in a resilient service down to Penzance, in my constituency, we need to ensure that there is funding comparable to the money being spent on HS2 and other services?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will be asking for further work to be done on the question of resilience in the south-west, as I indicated to the hon. Gentleman in the meeting last night. Over the next five years, between 2014 and 2019, Network Rail will be spending £38 billion on the existing railway network. There is, therefore, no shortage of understanding from the Government of the importance of rail services across the whole country. As far as services in Devon and Cornwall are concerned, I also take those responsibilities incredibly seriously.

Lilian Greenwood: The introduction of wi-fi on First Great Western is undoubtedly good news for passengers, but given that the Government’s incompetent franchise extension negotiations have lost the taxpayer £100 million in premium payments this year, is this not the most expensive internet upgrade in history?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure what that has to do with the internet upgrade. Obviously, when a new franchise contract, or short-term contract, is leased, various matters are taken into account, including the age and replacement of rolling stock. If the Labour party is not committed to that, I wonder what Labour Members would say to Bombardier, which today won a rolling stock contract that will be very important to Derby and Derbyshire. Would they say that they were opposed to it?

Disabled Access (Stations)

Joan Walley: What support is available to people with disabilities at railway stations with no disabled access.

Robert Goodwill: The Equality Act 2010 requires station operators to address the needs of disabled travellers. So far, 153 station access projects have been authorised, of which 38 are on site and the remainder have already been completed.

Joan Walley: The policy of East Midlands Trains, which runs trains through Kidsgrove station in my constituency, is that
	“if you want to travel to and from stations which are inaccessible, you can do so at no extra cost.”
	But would it not make far more sense for the Government to approve the plans for disabled access at Kidsgrove in April? This is a real cost-of-living issue. It would be much cheaper for the Government to do that, and much better for disabled people.

Robert Goodwill: The Government have announced the provision of a further £100 million to extend the scheme to 2019. In order to qualify, stations must meet three important criteria. We expect to announce 53 projects in April that have been approved under the scheme.

Nigel Mills: May I urge the Minister to ensure, when he announces those projects, that Alfreton station, which is in my constituency, is
	included? Disabled access to both platforms is long overdue, and it really should be provided in the next year.

Robert Goodwill: The criteria that we apply when assessing stations for the purposes of the scheme are the footfall—if that is the right word to use—of disabled people at stations, the level of use, and the number of disabled people in the area.

Mary Creagh: Just one in five railway stations is fully accessible to disabled passengers, but from 2014 the Minister is cutting funds for the Access for All programme from £43 million a year to £25 million. His Department has said that involving disabled organisations in decisions about which stations should have priority
	“would add little value to the process”.
	How can people with disabilities have any trust that the Government are on their side?

Robert Goodwill: We are continuing the scheme that was initiated by the last Government. By 2015, 75% of journeys will be step-free, as opposed to 50% in 2006.

Motorway Safety

William Bain: What steps he is taking to improve safety on motorways.

Robert Goodwill: Motorways are the safest roads in the country. The Highways Agency network carries 32.7% of all traffic, but accounts for only 6.8% of those killed or seriously injured. Hard-shoulder running on smart motorways is delivering further improvements.

William Bain: Does the Minister not accept that opening a stretch of hard shoulder permanently, while reducing the amount of signage and the number of emergency refuge areas on our managed motorways, is an example of the Government giving reduced costs a higher priority than road safety?

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I know that this seems counter-intuitive, but 8% of fatalities take place on the hard shoulders of existing motorways, although only a very small proportion of traffic is on them. Hard-shoulder running, managed motorways and smart motorways have been a great success, and have reduced the number of accidents on those sections of the motorway by 50%.

Anne McIntosh: I agree with my hon. Friend that the standard of safety on motorways is very high, but he and I would both benefit from improved safety on the A64. Will he update the House on the progress that is being made with better road improvements, less congestion and the easing of traffic on the A64 between York and Scarborough?

Robert Goodwill: I suppose that I should declare an interest, as the Member of Parliament for Scarborough.
	We have tripled spending on road projects since we came to power, which will mean that roads such as the A64 are likely to have a much better chance of improving. In the short term, I am interested to note that a trial
	that is taking place on the A9 in Scotland, where the speed limit for lorries is being increased from 40 to 50 mph. We hope that will reduce the number of nasty accidents caused by people overtaking in dangerous places.

Mr Speaker: The road in question is immensely important, but I do not think that it is a motorway,

Patrick McLoughlin: A broadband approach.

Mr Speaker: Indeed. There is a degree of ingenuity about the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), with which I am very familiar.

Susan Elan Jones: The great British pub is well sited in many places, but I suggest that junction 2 of the M40—or, indeed, any other motorway junction—is not one of them. Organisations such as Brake are firmly against the siting of a pub there, and a survey from the RAC has now shown that two thirds of the British public are against it as well. Will the Minister please look into this issue? It is nonsense to have a pub at a motorway service station.

Robert Goodwill: I understand that the pub in that particular case is at a motorway service area that is served by other roads as well as the motorway, and these decisions are a matter for local authorities. Every pub in the country is served by a road, and it is up to drivers to act responsibly and ensure that they do not drink and drive.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that expecting the police to enforce the proposed new offence of smoking in cars with children present will divert them away from other duties, which could have a direct impact on motorway safety?

Robert Goodwill: That is probably a matter for the Secretary of State for Health. There will be a free vote on Monday on that subject, and I will certainly be voting to ban smoking in cars where children are present, having had to sit in the back of the car at a young age feeling green and carsick while my father was puffing away.

Bus Services

Chris Williamson: What assessment he has made of the availability of bus services across the country.

Andy Sawford: What assessment he has made of the availability of bus services across the country.

Robert Goodwill: Decisions about the provision of bus services outside London are a matter for commercial bus operators and local authorities, who are best placed to identify the transport needs in their areas. Ministers and officials are in regular contact with bus sector stakeholders such as local authorities and the Confederation of Passenger Transport about developments in the bus market. My noble Friend Baroness Kramer will
	also chair the next meeting of the Bus Partnership Forum this week, bringing together all those with an interest in the provision of bus services.

Chris Williamson: First, may I put on record that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and I very much welcome the Crossrail announcement, which will secure the long-term future of rail manufacturing in Derby? My question is about buses, however. The Minister will be aware that Government figures show that, as a result of Government cuts, there has been a 17% reduction in the number of supported bus services in this country. Will it not render meaningless the Prime Minister’s commitment to securing the pensioners bus pass if there are no buses for pensioners to use in the first place?

Robert Goodwill: Local authorities have certainly had to make some difficult decisions, but the fact remains that 44% of the money that goes to bus companies comes, in one way or another, from the taxpayer. We should look carefully at the working of the bus service operators grant, which is a fuel subsidy, because it seems to be a very blunt tool to support services that are under threat, particularly in rural areas.

Andy Sawford: Many bus services in my area have been cut altogether, and some of those that are left are of poor quality. Will the Minister help my constituents by encouraging the Vehicle and Operator Service Agency to investigate why the Centrebus service between Raunds and Thrapston frequently either fails to arrive or breaks down?

Robert Goodwill: I will certainly be happy to do that. I also recommend that the operator Stagecoach should go to Scarborough and order a new fleet of buses, made in my constituency, to solve that problem.

Paul Maynard: At a time when Lancashire county council is making further piecemeal reductions to my local bus network, will Ministers urge local authorities and private sector bus companies to involve passengers far more in the design of local networks, to ensure that the buses go to the locations that passengers actually want them to go to?

Robert Goodwill: A number of local authorities up and down the country are looking at intelligent ways of addressing that problem, including utilising dial-a-ride and community buses more. People tend to defend the status quo, but it is often the case that alternative solutions can be more acceptable, particularly to older people who travel during the daytime.

Gordon Marsden: Does not bus availability also include bus accessibility? With fares going up and the number of services going down, are Ministers not making disabled passengers second-class citizens by ducking out of enforcing new European standards for bus operators to give their staff disability awareness training, as rail operators have to do? The Transport Select Committee, disability charities and tens of thousands of disabled people think that the Government should sign up to that new standard. A month ago, the Minister promised in Westminster Hall
	that his Department would review the training opt-out in March. Will he now tell disabled passengers whether he will give them that support—yes or no?

Robert Goodwill: As I made clear during the Westminster Hall debate, a large number of bus operators are doing this voluntarily, and we certainly support a voluntary approach, rather than regulation.

HS2 Skills Academy

Andrew Percy: What plans he has to set up a High Speed 2 skills academy.

Patrick McLoughlin: In January, the Government announced their intention to set up a new college to train the next generation of world-class engineers to work on the construction of High Speed 2. My Department is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and HS2 Ltd to develop the proposals, which are currently at an early stage.

Andrew Percy: My right hon. Friend will know of the proud manufacturing heritage in the Humber—in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. May I suggest that he ensures that any such skills academy is located in the Humber, and that a perfect location would be in Scunthorpe, which was recently awarded a university technical college?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased about the awarding of the UTC in my hon. Friend’s area, and he doubtless campaigned for it vigorously. I know that he will continue the campaign to get the HS2 skills college. I have had a number of requests from various hon. Members on where this college should be located.

Brian H Donohoe: As an ex-apprentice, I am very passionate about the idea of creating more apprenticeships, and this project presents an ideal opportunity. Labour is committed to creating one apprenticeship for every £1 million spent. Will the Government do likewise?

Patrick McLoughlin: What is important is the way in which we have massively increased the number of apprenticeships. Part of today’s announcement about Bombardier means that there will be an increase in apprenticeships in that area, and I am looking at every possible avenue to encourage apprenticeships.

Heather Wheeler: Again, may I congratulate Ministers on the brilliant result of Bombardier getting the Crossrail deal and the 80 apprentices that that contract will bring? Would it not make complete sense for this academy to be based in Derby?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), there will be a number of applications for the location of this academy. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) in congratulating Bombardier, which won this Crossrail contract against some stiff competition. It just shows that Bombardier
	can win competitions for rolling stock and that the Government are committed to providing that rolling stock, too.

Nicholas Dakin: What assessment was made of the capacity and expertise of existing further education colleges before the decision was made to spend £20 million of scarce public money on a new academy?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman seems not to be bidding; there will be one fewer venue to consider as a result of that sort of intervention. It is not often I hear people complaining about the Government investing in higher education and the future of our engineering skills. I am very proud we are doing it—it will be £20 million well spent.

Rail Passengers

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to improve value for money for rail passengers.

Patrick McLoughlin: We are driving efficiencies through our franchising programme and franchise management, and by encouraging co-operation across the industry. Working with the regulator, we have cut Network Rail’s costs by 40% since 2004, and it has a further efficiency target of just under 20% by 2019. We have also shown our commitment to giving value for money this year by capping the average regulated fare rise at the retail prices index only. That is the first time this has happened in 10 years.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome all the measures to which he has referred. Last year, South West Trains paid the Department for Transport the highest premium per passenger kilometre of any operator but had the fourth highest level of overcrowding in London and the south-east. So what more can be done to deliver better value for money for passengers on South West Trains?

Patrick McLoughlin: I fully accept the points about my hon. Friend’s constituents, and one thing we have been doing is increasing the availability of rolling stock. A number of new trains are on order which will serve his constituents, and I hope that that will bring some relief to the overcrowding. He rightly says that a number of commuters live in his area, and there are problems in providing the peak-hour trains for everybody who wants to travel then. That is why I want to see further encouragements to spread the morning rush hour.

Alison Seabeck: Value for money for passengers travelling down to the south-west has always been an issue, but with the destruction of the rail line there is growing concern that the need to spend money following this climate problem will fall to passengers and they will find themselves picking up the bill. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister’s promise made yesterday, which can be found at column 269 of Hansard, will be honoured and that the Government will take their share of the burden?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am glad that the hon. Lady could join me at the meeting last night with Network Rail, and I am grateful to all the colleagues who attended at short notice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will make a statement later this morning and give further details of the help that we will make available to those areas. No one can have seen the pictures of Dawlish yesterday without having tremendous sympathy or realising the scale of the problems that we have to overcome.

Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that passengers from my constituency on the West Anglia line could be more readily persuaded that there will be value for money if there were an early promise of new, not hand-me-down, rolling stock to replace the elderly type 317s on which they mostly have to rely?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that my right hon. Friend continues to make this case—he made it to me when I was in his constituency not many months ago—and I will bear in mind what he says. We are investing huge amounts in new rolling stock, including the new intercity express trains, the new trains for Crossrail and the other rolling stock orders that we have placed, which will benefit the travelling public.

Emily Thornberry: The efficiency of the underground railway in London is the reason, we are told, why the changes will be made. While my constituents welcome the increased hours that the underground is likely to be open, they are concerned that it will mean fewer staff on duty overall. I have written to Transport for London to ask how many staff will be on duty, for example, at Angel, Islington at 3 am, but it has been unable to tell me. Will the Secretary of State help? Would he allow his teenage children on the underground at 3 am? Does he think that would be safe?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady says that her constituents rely on the underground, but I have yet to hear any Opposition Member condemn the strike action that is causing suffering to many millions of people in London and surrounding areas. It is all very well calling for extra capacity on the railways and the underground, but if strike action means that people cannot use them, it is ineffective.

Transport Infrastructure (Kettering)

Philip Hollobone: What recent progress has been made on (a) Highways Agency works to widen the A14 between junctions 7 and 9 and (b) Network Rail’s reconstruction of the Pytchley Road road bridge over the Midland main line in Kettering.

Robert Goodwill: I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the news that works to widen this section of the A14 around Kettering are under way. Widening the eastbound carriageway has begun and is due to be completed in approximately four months’ time. Work will then follow on the westbound carriageway.
	Network Rail installed the new Pytchley Road bridge deck over the Midland main line over the Christmas period and is now reconstructing the road over it. This work is on programme for completion by the end of February.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Government’s direct investment in the transport infrastructure in Kettering, but can I point out to the Minister that while residents will welcome the works once completed, they are causing a huge amount of traffic disruption to residents in Kettering? There is concern that both projects are being undertaken at the same time. Can I seek his guarantee that the work on the Pytchley Road bridge will be completed on time at the end of this month?

Robert Goodwill: I can certainly give him that assurance. The Pytchley Road bridge is part of the electrification that we are carrying out on the railways. We have already announced 800 miles of electrification, compared with 9 miles under the previous Government. The decision was taken to do the two works simultaneously, and we are using the same traffic management company to try to ensure that we co-ordinate the disruption that sadly always happens when that type of work is done.

Rolling Stock

Craig Whittaker: What plans he has to introduce new rolling stock on the railways.

Patrick McLoughlin: I would draw the House’s attention to my statement this morning about the preferred bidder for the £1 billion Crossrail rolling stock and depot contract. Combined with IEP and Thameslink, more than 3,100 new carriages will be in service by the end of 2019. In addition, through the franchising programme we expect the market to deliver additional rolling stock solutions, building on the possibilities created by the rail investment strategy’s electrification projects and capacity increases.

Craig Whittaker: The Government need to be applauded for investing £8 million in the reopening of the Todmorden curve railway line between Todmorden and Burnley, which is due for completion in May. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether any progress has been made with Northern Rail on the procurement of a further diesel train so that the service can start before December?

Patrick McLoughlin: I well understand the points my hon. Friend makes. I know that Northern Rail has been working on how best to deliver those services, including the provision for rolling stock. A small number of diesel trains from within the current northern fleet may become available for use on this service from December 2014 when the electric trains are due to start operating on some services between Liverpool and Manchester, but I know and understand my hon. Friend’s desire to get a service up and running sooner. I will personally look into what can be made available.

Fiona Mactaggart: New rolling stock will be required on the very welcome new line planned from the Great Western main line into Heathrow, which was announced today. Will the Minister take action to speed up the delivery of that line? If we wait until 2021
	to deliver that line some of the businesses in the Thames valley which have been hanging on for western access to Heathrow might leave the country. Can he do more to speed it up?

Patrick McLoughlin: We are investing record amounts into the rail industry. I will certainly look into the point the hon. Lady makes, but it is one of many demands as far as rail services are concerned.

Pauline Latham: Will the Secretary of State join me again in welcoming the fantastic order won by Bombardier, but could we also encourage Bombardier to use its local supply chain industry because we have a centre of excellence in Derby for engineering and knock-on industries and it would be very good if it could spread the load and invest in the local area?

Patrick McLoughlin: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I know she will be delighted at today’s announcement. It is worth pointing out that in Derby we have got not only Bombardier but Rolls-Royce and Toyota and just over in Staffordshire—but I almost regard it as Derbyshire—JCB, all providing an engineering centre of excellence. It is true that some 71% of this new contract will be based on small and medium-sized industries in this country. I forgot to say that JCB is also in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler).

Bus and Train Fares

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment he has made of the effects of rising bus and train fares on the cost of living and the cost of travelling to work.

Robert Goodwill: The fares that passengers pay are crucial to funding bus and rail operations. In rail, they contribute towards the major investment programme we are undertaking. I recognise concerns passengers have about impacts of fares on household budgets, which is why for the first time in a decade average regulated rail fares have been capped at inflation. Outside London, bus services are deregulated and fares are mainly a matter for the commercial judgment of bus operators.

Kerry McCarthy: Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that single people under the age of 35 are being hit particularly hard by the cost of living crisis and are at the greatest risk of having extremely low incomes. Does the Department recognise that high fares make it even more difficult for them to find work and stay in work, particularly if it is only part-time work which is increasingly what is on offer to them these days?

Robert Goodwill: I am surprised the hon. Lady did not welcome the fact that we have capped rail fares at inflation for the first time in a decade, and I also note she was not whingeing on in the same way when, for example, council tax doubled under the last Labour Government, and every year the fuel duty escalator loaded expense on people who buy petrol and we had above-inflation fare rises every time.

Topical Questions

Linda Riordan: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing sympathy for those who have been affected by the extreme weather conditions. An urgent priority is the railway at Dawlish. Colleagues will have seen the images of the devastating impact the weather has had on the railway there. I met members of all parties of Devon and Cornwall yesterday evening alongside Network Rail. The immediate priority is to assess the damage and develop a plan for getting the line back into service as soon as possible, but I am acutely conscious of the need to develop a long-term solution to the resilience of the railway network in the south-west and I have asked for a report to me on the options for addressing this problem.

Linda Riordan: The Calder valley line was recently excluded from the list of northern lines to be electrified. Will the Secretary of State look again at this and back mine and the Halifax Courier’s campaign to get this line electrified as soon as possible?

Patrick McLoughlin: I met an all-party group on rail electrification a few weeks ago and discussed the matters that the hon. Lady has just relayed. I fully accept that there is a lot of pressure on us to extend electrification. I am proud that we have set a target for Network Rail of 850 miles in the next control period. I am certain that other cases will be made. Let me stress to her that our target of 850 miles is 841 miles more than the previous Government achieved in 13 years.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating c2c on transforming what used to be known as the misery line, from Fenchurch Street to Southend, to the cheerful line, thus meaning that it should have its franchise renewed? By contrast, Greater Anglia railways must have the most clapped-out, dirtiest rolling stock in the world.

Patrick McLoughlin: Whenever I hear my hon. Friend’s voice behind me in the House, it always cheers me up. The transformation of the line into Fenchurch Street is largely the result of investment by Network Rail and the Department for Transport in both infrastructure and the rolling stock. The bids for Essex Thameside are currently being evaluated, and the Department will seek to announce a preferred bidder shortly.

Mary Creagh: Freak weather is rapidly becoming the new normal in our country, and I understand the difficulties that the Secretary of State has in giving a time scale for the Dawlish repairs given that further bad weather is forecast for Saturday. None the less, every week that the line is closed is costing the regional economy tens of millions of pounds. Will he keep the House updated and look urgently and strategically
	across the whole rail network, including at Wales the north-east and Scotland, to see how we can make it more resilient against future storms?

Patrick McLoughlin: In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, I simply say yes. That must be the first time that anyone has been able to do that.

Neil Parish: There is no doubt in my mind that the west country is the most important part of the country. At the moment, not only do we have problems with the main rail down through Dawlish and Exeter, but we need to upgrade the Exeter to Waterloo line. We also need that second arterial road route, the A30-A303, to ensure that we get access to the west country

Robert Goodwill: I can tell my hon. Friend that the A30-A303 corridor is one of the six strategic routes into which we are trying to get some investment. It is a very important route, and, as we have seen from the vulnerability of the rail line, it is one on which we need to concentrate. I am aware that there are some environmental issues in the Stonehenge area and the Blackdown hills, so we need to be sensitive in the way that we deliver the improvements.

Barry Sheerman: I know that the Secretary of State gets on well with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who is encouraging muscular localism and local referendums. Will he do the same in those communities, the big cities, where no one has been consulted about the value for money and the impact of High Speed 2.

Patrick McLoughlin: There have been many opportunities to raise the issue of HS2. I am pleased that the paving Bill received the overwhelming support of the House of Commons, and I regard that as an important referendum in itself.

Nigel Mills: While joining in the welcome for the Crossrail award to Bombardier this morning, may I invite the Secretary of State to my constituency to see the real harm caused by the level of noise from the A38 to people living far too close to that road?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I drive through my hon. Friend’s constituency on a regular basis, I am more than delighted to come and talk to him and his constituents about some of the problems that noise creates for them as a result of the traffic on the A38.

Gavin Shuker: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the granting of planning permission for the expansion of Luton airport? It will help the Government with their capacity problem in the south-east and do so without the extension of any existing runway or the building of a new one?

Robert Goodwill: Regional airports, or local international airports as I like to call them, have an important part to play in delivering the air connectivity that we need, so I am pleased to hear that news.

Craig Whittaker: The future of electrification in the north will be looked at by a joint committee of experts to recommend future routes for electrification in the north of England. Will the Secretary of State advise us when that joint committee will be set up so that those of us who are rooting for the Caldervale line to be electrified can do so?

Robert Goodwill: The Government are transforming rail travel for passengers across the north and are investing heavily in the electrification of the network and in the £500 million northern hub capacity scheme. In parallel with that new commitment, we announced the establishment of a joint taskforce to explore where to go next with electrification in the north. The taskforce has been asked to ensure that eight named routes are considered, but it is free to consider the case for any route in the north, including the Caldervale line.

Phil Wilson: Although, obviously, I am disappointed that Hitachi was not successful in winning the Crossrail bid, I am pleased for the people of Derby and think that it is good news for British jobs. I am sure that the House is aware that although all the bidders are foreign-owned, two are based in the UK: Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency and Bombardier in Derby. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what processes are in place to ensure that the winning bidder will fulfil its contractual obligations?

Patrick McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman will know, because he was very much involved when Hitachi won the intercity express programme order, there is a standstill period of an extra 10 days. What I announced along with the Mayor of London this morning was the preferred bidder. That process has to be gone through and it is right that it should be gone through. It all goes to show that Hitachi is investing in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I was up there a few weeks ago, and Hitachi has a huge order and is determined to win more, not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe.

Philip Davies: The only direct trains from Shipley to King's Cross are at 6.36 and 7.17 in the morning and the only direct train back is at 6.33 in the evening—all at peak times. When the east coast line is refranchised, may we have more direct trains to Shipley and at off-peak times so that my constituents can benefit from lower fares?

Patrick McLoughlin: As my hon. Friend knows, the invitations to tender for services on the east coast line are being dealt with by the Department. I am sure that the people who monitor these sessions will take on board his recommendation.

Paul Flynn: A while ago, a lorry caught fire on a motorway in my constituency. It was carrying ammunition, including Sidewinder missiles. Will the Minister consider approaching those who transport very dangerous materials, including chemicals, to suggest transferring those journeys from motorways to rail, where the chances of a catastrophe are greatly reduced?

Robert Goodwill: The Department takes the transportation of dangerous goods very seriously. As a former road tanker driver, I understand many of the hazards. As we build the high-speed rail network and electrify more
	services, there will be more capacity on the existing classic line for more freight services such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Julian Huppert: Guide Dogs, Whizz-Kidz and Living Streets, among others, have supported a campaign I have been running with Claire Connon, a prospective 2016 Paralympian, to fix our pavements. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that footways can be used by people in wheelchairs, people with mobility issues, people who are partially sighted, people with pushchairs and everyone else who wants to make use of them?

Robert Goodwill: It is vital that we roll out as much accessibility in the countryside as possible. I know that organisations such as the Country Land and Business Association benevolent trust have given grant aid for such schemes. I think we should roll out as far as possible any schemes to allow more people access to footways and to ensure that disabled people have the same rights as everybody else to enjoy the countryside.

Diana Johnson: Of all the major northern towns, Hull is the only one with no proposal to electrify its main railway line. That means that First Hull Trains’ proposal to electrify the line from Selby to Hull is an essential upgrade, especially bearing in mind 2017. Will the Minister commit to working with Network Rail and First Hull Trains to ensure that we have that for 2017?

Robert Goodwill: We are certainly very interested in the suggestions made by First Hull Trains. I occasionally use that line myself and we will certainly consider that bid for electrification alongside others.

Sarah Newton: Although I greatly welcome today’s commitment to get our line open as soon as possible, does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we send out the message that Cornwall is still open for business? Will he therefore lay out plans for alternative bus services to replace the train services?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, we will be considering a number of those issues and I hope to be able to inform my hon. Friend and others from that area shortly of the measures that we want to put in place. She is absolutely right that Devon and Cornwall are fantastic places to go. There have been some rough connection problems, and we have to sort them out, but Devon and Cornwall will still be a great destination for both Easter and half term.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry but we must move on.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Members Services

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services available to hon. Members.

John Thurso: The Commission has a policy of continuous improvement, which helps to drive both efficiency and effectiveness. The fundamental principle adopted by the Commission has been that any cost reductions should not adversely affect the ability of the House and its Members to carry out their parliamentary functions. The House is on track to reduce its budget by 17% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15, and this discipline has been a spur to innovation and moving to new and better ways of doing things. In many ways, the House is now more rather than less effective.

Barry Sheerman: May I profoundly disagree with the 17% cut? We are sent here to serve our constituents. This cut in budgets means that we are less and less able to do our job properly at every level. We know that, and the staff, whose morale is at rock bottom, know it too. It is about time the House of Commons Commission got the message that something is rotten in the state and that we have to do something about it soon.

John Thurso: May I say with all humility to the hon. Gentleman that the facts simply do not bear out his assertions? For example, sickness absence, which in most businesses is an extremely good measure of the morale of the work force, is at its lowest since we began recording in 2008-09. May I also say that the Finance and Services Committee at its meeting this week received the quarterly out-turn for the third quarter, and a number of the major Departments that operate Member services have budget left to spend and are likely not to use their budgets in-year? That is a result of effective delivery of services and there is no absence of money for parliamentary scrutiny.

Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision of the House to change its sitting hours has had a negative impact on catering, access to the Palace for constituency parties, and the ready availability of meeting rooms for the many groups that seek them?

John Thurso: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. He, as Chair of the Administration Committee, has done a great deal of work with his Committee on this matter to ensure that the services provided are of the highest quality and, wherever possible, open to our constituents as well as to Members.

Heating Bills

Philip Hollobone: What steps the Commission is taking to reduce heating bills on the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: This is a timely question, as a campaign has recently been launched to encourage all users of the estate, including hon. Members, to reduce energy use. All new estate projects are assessed for opportunities to improve energy efficiency in the Palace. Improvements are being made to temperature control and the efficiency of heating systems. There has been a successful pilot of roof insulation and a programme to refurbish windows
	is under way. Thermostatic radiator valves and occupancy sensors that shut down after a set period have been fitted in a number of areas across the estate.

Philip Hollobone: We must all put up our hands and admit to our individual responsibility for contributing to the hot air generated in this place, but will the House of Commons Commission undertake a study of the financial savings for each degree that the thermostat was turned down?

John Thurso: My hon. Friend makes a very sensible suggestion, which I will certainly take away and find out the answer to, and do my utmost to implement it.

Kevin Brennan: Is it especially expensive to heat the Terrace marquee? I recently received a letter from a constituent about an event that I had agreed to sponsor for the Westminster Education Forum, which showed that it was charging people £45 plus VAT for the privilege of attending an event at this House of Commons. Is that acceptable, and is that a direct consequence of the current efforts to turn this place into a convention centre?

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman asks about the heating in the Terrace marquee. I do not have an answer to hand; if I may, I will write to him with the correct answer.

Mr Speaker: James Wharton. Not here. Where is he?

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Written Parliamentary Questions

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of Departments' performance in answering written parliamentary questions.

Tom Brake: My office collates departmental performance information for ordinary and named day parliamentary questions for each Session, which are submitted to the Procedure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons provided data relating to the last Session to that Committee in July 2013. Those data are available on the parliamentary website.

Kerry McCarthy: I have received particularly poor responses to recent written questions to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister on whether they would raise human rights issues during business trips abroad. For example, the Prime Minister took more than two weeks to reply to named day questions, with no holding answer. Does the Deputy Leader of the House think that it is wrong for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, in particular, to show such contempt for Members who are simply seeking to find out what they do when they go abroad at public expense?

Tom Brake: I certainly agree that it is possible to achieve a very high quality in response. For instance, the Department of Health achieves a 99% response rate. If the hon. Lady would like to send me the details of the questions she refers to, I would be happy to look into the matter.

David Nuttall: As a member of the Procedure Committee, perhaps I can help the Deputy Leader of the House. Will he use this opportunity to remind right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they are unhappy with a reply to a written question, because of a delay or the content, they can submit it to the Committee and we will look into and chase up those questions?

Tom Brake: Indeed; I am very happy to encourage Members to do that. The Procedure Committee looks at this matter in detail. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, if there are specific concerns about how Departments handle their replies, they are required to explain to the Procedure Committee why they have been unable to respond promptly.

Andy Sawford: Will the Deputy Leader of the House look particularly at the performance of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and will he deprecate the consistent attempt to reveal as little information as possible in answers to parliamentary questions? I will gladly furnish him with some recent questions that I have had “answered” of a fashion.

Tom Brake: I am happy to convey the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the Department. He might want to know that one of our responsibilities in the Leader of the House’s office is to ensure that best practice in responding to questions is circulated. For instance, we have encouraged Departments not to respond to questions by providing links to websites. We are requiring them to provide the hard figures to make it easier for Members to assess the response.

Peter Bone: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that we would have fewer parliamentary questions if we had more time to debate important issues, such as the Immigration Bill? One great thing that the coalition Government promised was a business of the House committee, so when will we get it?

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is slightly off the mark, in relation to handling responses to written parliamentary questions, but I am sure that his concern will have been noted in the appropriate places.

Angela Eagle: If it is to do its job of scrutinising the Executive efficiently, Parliament must be able to rely on timely answers from Government Departments. After the Procedure Committee highlighted last year’s atrocious performance, the Leader of the House committed the Government to establishing a new electronic system for Departments across Whitehall to improve responses. Can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us whether that is now in place and whether we can expect to see an improvement in response times when the Procedure Committee publishes an update next week? Will he set out what he will do if there are Departments that have failed to improve their performance and if some have deteriorated?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She might not be aware that over the past Session there has been an improvement: more Departments have been improving their responses than have been deteriorating.
	I certainly agree that the electronic system will ensure that Members get a better response and that there will be much less dependence on paperwork circulating throughout the system. I have just seen the progress that has been made in that system and am confident that when it is implemented Members will be very pleased with it and that it will save substantial sums of money.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Parliament (Temporary Relocation)

Meg Hillier: What consideration is being given to a temporary relocation of Parliament to enable refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster.

John Thurso: I announced in a written statement on 17 December 2013 that the contract had been awarded for an independent appraisal of the options for restoring and renewing the palace, in co-operation with the House of Lords. A temporary relocation of Parliament is one of the options being analysed. Other options include a phased programme of less disruptive interventions or a partial relocation. No decisions on the matter are expected in this Parliament, and certainly not before the report is received.

Meg Hillier: I fear that once again we are kicking an issue into the long grass. Sadly, we have lost the opportunity to relocate to east London now that the Olympic park is soon to reopen. Would not a relocation to somewhere such as, say, Birmingham, in the centre of the country—[Interruption.] It could be Birmingham or any other city that Members may wish to suggest. Would that not only speed up the improvement of this place but modernise ways of working and change the culture of this place once and for all?

John Thurso: Confident in the Union of the United Kingdom, I would of course offer Inverness as a place we might all like to go to, which would save the taxpayer a considerable amount in travel expenses. The really important thing is to get this right. The independent options appraisal will ensure that we have a true understanding of the scale of the problem and the different costs of different solutions. I suggest to all Members that we wait to see what the outcome of that is and then make a decision based on fact and best value for the taxpayer.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Voluntary Sector

William Bain: What recent discussions he has had with the voluntary sector on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.

Tom Brake: The Government met nearly 50 organisations to discuss the provisions of the Act before it received Royal Assent. Those discussions led to a number of changes being made to the then Bill to reduce the burden on smaller third parties who campaign at elections, to ease the transition to the new regime, and to clarify the rules.

William Bain: Notwithstanding the unseemly haste to rush this legislation to Royal Assent last week, many voluntary sector organisations have deep misgivings about the effect it will have on the way that they operate. Will the Minister show equal haste in committing to post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation so that the House can assess the damaging impact that it will have on our charities?

Tom Brake: We have surely now reached the time when the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members should accept that the Act does not do what he has claimed. He may not be aware that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations recently said:
	“We are grateful that the government has listened to the concerns charities have raised in recent months…The”
	Act
	“provides a much more sensible balance…between creating accountability and transparency in elections while still allowing for charities and others to speak up on issues of concern.”

Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Julian Huppert: What plans he has to increase the use of pre-legislative scrutiny.

Andrew Lansley: The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the previous Session, which is more than the previous Government did in any Session.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Leader of the House. It is clear that there have been some benefits. The recent Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill ended up with a lot of provisions that were recommended on pre-legislative scrutiny, although the process would have been faster if they had been included straight away. Does he agree that the principle should be that, unless there are exceptional reasons, all Bills should go through some sort of pre-legislative scrutiny?

Andrew Lansley: We endeavour to publish legislation in draft, but it is not always possible. My hon. Friend and the House will understand that, for example, at the start of a Parliament, or sometimes for reasons of policy, measures have to be brought in at a pace that does not permit the kind of pre-legislative scrutiny that we would generally seek. Let me point out that only this week we debated the Deregulation Bill on Second Reading, and that was scrutinised in draft form, and in the previous week, the Consumer Rights Bill came to the House, and that had had substantial pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend to the House how we are continuing to engage in that.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Food Waste

Duncan Hames: What assessment he has made of the amount of food waste from catering outlets on the Parliamentary Estate.

John Thurso: Food waste from prepared dishes in the House of Commons catering outlets, as measured as a percentage against sales, is 3%. This is well below the national average for the catering industry, which is 5%. The Sustainable Restaurant Association has rated the House of Commons as a good-practice organisation in respect of food waste. We take a variety of measures to monitor and reduce the amount of food waste from catering outlets. There are plans to extend composting of food waste, which is already undertaken in the Palace in relation to other outlets.

Mr Speaker: We are now better informed.

Duncan Hames: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the progress that is being made. Does he agree that, as the Commission sees this challenge day in, day out, it would be wise for it to invite staff in the catering service to make their own suggestions on reducing food waste?

John Thurso: It has been my experience that staff suggestions are always worth looking at, but the real challenge is the 21% waste from domestic fridges—that is the real scandal.

Mr Speaker: That was a splendidly pithy reply, which allows us briefly to get on to the important matter of vermin infestation.

Vermin Infestation

Diana Johnson: What recent representations he has received on vermin infestation on the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: Recent representations have been received from hon. Members about mice in Norman Shaw South. Measures taken include sealing gaps and fitting bristle strips to office doors. Leaflets have been distributed to alert occupants to the measures being taken and provide practical advice to alleviate the problem. I encourage hon. Members to follow that advice, which includes not leaving sandwiches on their desks.

Diana Johnson: According to recent media reports, mutant super rats are taking over the Commons and it is costing £6,000 per month for vermin control measures on the parliamentary estate. Surely the traditional use of cats would be more effective and cheaper.

John Thurso: My sympathies are entirely with the hon. Lady. I have a perfectly vicious cat in Thurso which is keeping the rodent population down. There are serious problems in relation to people who are allergic to cats and the diseases they carry. After extensive research, it is believed that there is no rat problem inside the House of Commons—at least, not of the four-legged variety.

Mr Speaker: We are running late, but we must hear from Miss Anne McIntosh.

Anne McIntosh: As I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, we have been offered a rescue cat or two from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. I fear I might be allergic to mice and rats—of the two and four-legged variety—so will my hon. Friend consider that very generous offer?

John Thurso: I am certain the Commission would want to consider such a generous offer.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 10 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Children and Families Bill, followed by a debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the presumption of innocence and EU law.
	Tuesday 11 February—Opposition day [20th allotted day]. There will be a full day’s debate entitled “Fairness and Inequality” on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist Party.
	Wednesday 12 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Thursday 13 February—A debate on a motion relating to the Normington report on reform of the Police Federation, followed by a general debate on the all-party parliamentary group on cancer report on cancer priorities in the NHS.
	The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 14 February—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 24 February will include:
	Monday 24 February—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 24 February will be:
	Monday 24 February—General debate on an e-petition relating to holiday companies charging extra in school holidays.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement, but it was yet again so devoid of actual Government business that he may as well have let me or the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee do it. In the past four weeks, more than 60% of our time has been taken up by non-Government business, because this is a zombie coalition staggering around with no discernible purpose. Is that all we can expect for the next 15 months?
	This Government have not just given up on legislating; they have given up on listening to Parliament, too. My calculations show that, on top of the three votes this Government have lost on their own business, they have ignored dozens of votes on Back-Bench business because they did not like the outcome. Last month, the House voted by 125 to two to set up a commission to study the effects of social security cuts on poverty; nothing has been done since. In 2012, we voted to stop the badger cull; the plans to roll out the cull are still in place. In 2013, the House voted to make sex and relationship education in our schools compulsory; that has not been done. Will the Leader of the House tell us what he thinks the purpose of Parliament is, if the Government just pick and choose which votes they are going to act on?
	The Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that he plans to stage a debate and vote on repealing the ban on fox hunting, but it is not in the current business. Will the
	Leader of the House tell me how that debate will be structured, when it will actually happen and whether he will now rule out the option of using a statutory instrument to make the ban unenforceable, which is being actively canvassed by the pro-fox-hunting lobby?
	This week, the Education Secretary sacked the chair of Ofsted, despite praising her “great knowledge and insight”. I am sure it is no coincidence that the man tipped to replace her has donated more than £100,000 to the Conservative party. A pattern seems to be emerging: the new chair of Natural England—a Tory donor; the new chair of the Care Quality Commission—a former Tory chief executive; the new chair of Monitor—a Tory ex-Minister; and, of course, the new head of the Prime Minister’s appointments board is also a former Tory staff member. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General about the strange correlation revealed between favours to the Tory party and quango jobs? While he is at it, will he now commit to publishing the full list of Tory donors who have been wined and dined anonymously at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s official residence?
	When the Education Secretary is not at loggerheads with his own Minister for Schools, or doing the lines you gave him yesterday, Mr Speaker, he is apparently fighting with “The Blob”. I must admit that it took me a while to work out that he was not setting up a jogging club for Cabinet Ministers so that they could all join the Prime Minister in trotting around St James’s park. I wonder whether the Education Secretary has taken to naming other Cabinet Ministers after cult films. After the Chief Secretary to the Treasury commented that he would let the Tories lower the top rate of tax to 40p over his dead body, his cult film would be “Night of the Living Dead”. The Home Secretary’s would naturally be “Aliens”, and the Work and Pensions Secretary’s would be “Nosferatu the Vampire”. I have found a perfect one for the Liberal Democrats—Ray Steckler’s 1964 monster classic, “The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies”.
	I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is looking for a new communications director, after the current post holder decided to leave after three months. She may have had a wealth of experience in dealing with high-profile clients across the globe, but everybody eventually realises that there are just certain things they cannot polish. I understand that the Liberal Democrat HR team has had to redraft the job description for the re-appointment. It now reads: “Must have extensive experience in crisis management.”
	This week has shown that the Tory party has let the modernising mask slip. It capitulated in the face of its Back Benchers on the Immigration Bill. There was not a single woman on the Front Bench during Prime Minister’s questions. [Interruption.] It has clearly got a rota in use today, and we will see how long that lasts. Even the Prime Minister’s personal endorsements could not save two pro-European MPs from being deselected by their local Conservative associations. The Tory Tea party is baying for blood, and the Prime Minister is too weak to face it down. As Labour starts the journey to an historic reform that will open up our structures, the contrast could not be clearer between a Labour leader
	with the confidence to deliver real change in his party and a Prime Minister who is on the run from his own Back Benchers.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, but her principal comment was that no Government business is being brought forward. I have looked again at the business that I have just announced, and three of the five days in the Chamber involve Government business: consideration of Lords amendments to the Children and Families Bill, the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill—a further Bill introduced just yesterday—and debates on the police grant and local government finance reports. I cannot see what she is complaining about.
	Frankly, to reiterate what the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Members are perhaps ignoring, the time allocation for debates to the Opposition and the Backbench Business Committee is a proper use of the time of this House; it is not simply that this House debates only Government legislation and that that is all that matters, which would be absurd. If we listened to the shadow Leader of the House, all those days would be taken away and allocated to Government business. That is not what this House has decided to do. When my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary was Leader of the House earlier in this Parliament, he brought in a measure, with the agreement of the House, to allocate substantial time to the Backbench Business Committee, and rightly so.
	I have not announced a debate or a vote on fox hunting. What the Prime Minister said yesterday was absolutely right, but we have not been able to schedule such a debate at this stage.
	The hon. Lady asked about the position of Baroness Morgan as the chair of Ofsted, which is not really a business matter as such. I find what she said slightly astonishing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education appointed Baroness Morgan as the chair of Ofsted. Her term of office is expiring. I do not understand what the question is about. It is perfectly within the rights of Ministers, when a vacancy emerges, to refresh or change the leadership of public bodies.
	I point the hon. Lady to the figures on the political activity that has been signalled by those who are appointed to public appointments. In 2012-13, 3.3% of those people declared Conservative political activity, 3% declared Labour activity, 1% declared Liberal Democrat activity and 1.7% declared other political activity. [Interruption.] Yes, properly declared. I refer the hon. Lady to the figures for the last Parliament. Under the last Government, the figures repeatedly show that there were four times as many declarations of Labour political activity as Conservative political activity. The bias took place under the last Government, not under this Government.
	The hon. Lady told us something about films. I am not sure what that was all about. To relate it to the business, I am sure that she will have noted that whatever films she wants people to see, whether as analogies for Cabinet Ministers or anybody else, they will have enhanced opportunities under the Deregulation Bill to see them in local venues and film clubs. That is a jolly good thing.
	I note that the shadow Leader of the House did not request a debate on the maintenance of essential services in the face of unjustified and unnecessary strike action by trade union leaders. We did not hear about that from the hon. Lady, nor did we hear about it from the Leader of the Opposition when he came to the Dispatch Box yesterday, yet millions of people in London are being unnecessarily inconvenienced and are having great difficulty in getting about and doing their normal business. There is no need for such a strike. She should have come to the Dispatch Box and agreed that there was no need for such a strike.
	Equally, the shadow Leader of the House did not request a further debate on the relationship between trade unions’ political funds and political parties. Why is that? It is because that matter has been put off until 2020. So much for the efforts of the Leader of Opposition in that regard.
	The shadow Leader of the House did not mention the desirability of a debate on recent economic measures, either. I think that we should take every possible opportunity to debate the Government’s long-term economic plan. Almost daily, there is further evidence of the success of that plan, whether it is exports going up, news on manufacturing confidence or the increased number of jobs. The news today about Bombardier is clearly very welcome. We are cutting the deficit, cutting income tax and freezing fuel duty. We are seeing more jobs in the economy. We are capping welfare, reducing immigration and promoting better schools and skills for the future. All those things will give the people of this country the peace of mind and security that they need for the future.
	Finally, I am delighted that the shadow Leader of the House raised the issue of women in politics and, in particular, in this House. Speaking not as Leader of the House for a moment, but as a Conservative, I am proud that it is my party that had the first sitting woman Member of Parliament; that it is my party that gave votes to all women 85 years ago; that Emmeline Pankhurst was a Conservative activist; and that it was the Conservative party that gave this country its first woman Prime Minister.

Mark Pritchard: As Sri Lanka comes before the United Nations in connection with alleged human rights abuses at the end of the civil war, does the Leader of the House share my concern about the increasing persecution of the Christian Church in Sri Lanka, which has a long, proud history, and particularly the persecution of the nonconformist Church there?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall the steps that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary took during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to raise issues relating to human rights in Sri Lanka with the Government there. That gave unprecedented exposure to those issues, which was important. I know that many Members of the House are concerned about the position of Christians in many countries across the world, and I will again raise that issue with my hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as I know how concerned they are, and ask them to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard).

Natascha Engel: When will the House have the opportunity to debate and vote on changes to e-petitions, and will that debate also include a proposal for establishing a new petitions committee?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate at the moment, although I hope one may come forward soon. As I have already made clear to the House, the e-petition system run by the Government has been a great success and is linked to the Backbench Business Committee and the timetabling of debates. In the business I just announced we saw how an e-petition rapidly hit the 100,000 mark on the subject of extra charging for holidays during the school holidays, and that will be debated in Westminster Hall. There is, however, much wider scope and an opportunity for the House to consider and respond to petitions and allocate time for debate if the current e-petition system can be owned by both the Government and Parliament working together. I hope we can secure consensus on that soon, and give the House an opportunity to give its stamp of approval to that.

Alan Reid: Unite’s members at the Faslane naval base in my constituency have voted for strike action over the Babcock offer of a 1% pay increase. According to Unite, Babcock claims that the Ministry of Defence says that it must stick to public sector pay restrictions, but that does not seem to apply at other dockyards. May we have a statement on that from the Defence Secretary?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to my hon. Friend on that issue. He will know that the MOD is in negotiations with Babcock over the maritime support delivery framework contract, but that does not imply direct involvement in the pay offer, and its relationship with its staff is a matter for Babcock. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that a threat of industrial action is never an appropriate response to such matters, and everybody should be committed to the safe, secure and effective running of Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1041, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members, and concerns the persecution by the branch of Asda in Longsight in my constituency?
	[That this House expresses its disgust with and condemnation of the employment practices of Asda, in particular with regard to its treatment of a staff member at its branch in Longsight, Manchester; notes that this staff member was suspended for nearly two years on bogus allegations and has now, after this protracted and biased process, been unfairly dismissed; suspects that racism is involved in the persecution of this constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton; asserts that Asda has breached its own policies and procedures, confidentiality and data protection; further asserts that Asda has made false statements, has been involved in collusion over statements, has breached the ACAS code of practice, has made its decision with no valid evidence in support and has taken hearsay as being fact; and condemns these nasty bullies who believe they can get away with anything simply because they are immensely wealthy.]
	A constituent of mine who was employed by Asda was suspended on bogus charges. After nearly two years he has now been dismissed, with Asda breaking every single employment rule it would be possible to break, as well as taking into account the fact that my constituent is a member of an ethnic minority. May I add to you,
	Mr Speaker, that when I raised this matter with Asda, it wrote to me saying that it would report me to you for raising it? I therefore report myself to you for standing up for a constituent against these wealthy and powerful bullies.

Mr Speaker: The politest thing I can say is that Asda is not thereby demonstrating a very firm grasp of the parliamentary procedures that we operate in this place.

Andrew Lansley: I have seen the right hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion. I know he would not expect me to comment on the circumstances of his constituent in this case, but it is perfectly proper for him to raise the issue. Even if these are not matters for which we in Government or Parliament directly are responsible, it is our responsibility, and his, to represent our constituents. I hope that those concerned will respond, including responding positively to him.

Anne McIntosh: Everyone has been deeply moved by the sight of what is happening in Somerset and the south-west of England, with people being displaced from their homes, possibly for some considerable time. Also, we must note the generosity of both the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Westminster. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices and those of the Second Church Commissioner to work with the Church of England and local churches to consider whether it would be appropriate to set up a relief fund so that members of the public and Members of this House who wish to contribute may do so? The model I would suggest is that used by the Archbishop of York when we had a similar flood event, though not quite on the same scale, in Yorkshire and the Humber region in the 2000s.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the distress that communities are experiencing. We have to understand that it is not only potentially very serious for them, but it can be of long standing. It is not just about the response to these flooding events: recovery can take a great deal of time and require a lot of support. Clearly, we in Government will do everything we possibly can, but there is, as she rightly says, evidence of how people in this country want to help those in distress. Back in 2007 the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Lichfield put together through the Church Urban Fund a significant relief effort for those who had been affected. I am sure we could use the good offices of our right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) with others to see whether the Bishops of, for example, Bath and Wells, Exeter and Truro might think of doing something of a similar character.
	I am sorry to prolong the response, Mr Speaker, but may I reiterate what I said last week? We in this House value very much what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) does as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and on behalf of her constituents. Speaking entirely personally, may I say in that regard that I very much regret the decision that was taken by Thirsk and Malton constituency association last week?

Nigel Dodds: May we have a debate in Government time in the run-up to the Budget on air passenger duty and the effects this is having on regional airports and, more important, on the economies of the regions of the UK?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will know that in the run-up to the Budget these are properly matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I know, in the run-up to the Budget is always willing to listen to hon. Members’ representations on the Budget. This is a debate that we have had in the House, but it may well be something that we debate again.

Cheryl Gillan: May we have a debate on the quality and availability of information to Members of this House before they are asked to make serious decisions? I refer to two things, particularly the concealment of the Major Projects Authority reports on HS2, and the fact that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills have now appointed Golder Associates, who will produce a report for this House immediately after the close of the consultation on the environmental statement, which is 50,000 pages long. I gather that to date, with still almost a month to run, there are 10,000 responses that have to be analysed. The assessors will have to boil those down and present them to the House, which will give Members only 14 days, possibly, to look at them before the Second Reading of the HS2 hybrid Bill in this place. Will the Leader of the House look at how we can possibly ask Members to make important decisions and vote on Second Readings that are irrevocable when they do not have all the information on the risks involved and the whole project?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend will know that the Standing Orders Committee in this House and in the House of Lords looked at the timing on consultation. The result of that was that the time for receipt of responses to the consultation was moved to, from memory, 27 February in recognition of the fact that people should have time to look at what is clearly a great volume of information. I remind my right hon. Friend that it is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the proper assessment is made in of those responses to the consultation before our Second Reading. We have not announced the timetable for Second Reading. It is in any case, as the House will understand, a decision in principle on Second Reading, and through the hybrid Bill procedure there will be detailed examination of the Bill that follows.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that there is a very important statement on flooding to follow and thereafter two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, the first of which is exceptionally heavily subscribed? There is, therefore, a premium upon brevity, which I am sure will now be exemplified by Mr Sheridan.

Jim Sheridan: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1046?
	[That this House expresses serious concern at the anti-trade union behaviour of INEOS at its petrochemical plant in Grangemouth where it has dismissed Mark Lyon, the UK Vice-President of Unite The Union for carrying out his responsibilities as the elected convener of Unite The Union at the Grangemouth complex; notes that INEOS refuses to accept the Unite shops stewards elected by the workforce to represent them and is acting against the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 1998, 
	particularly ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise 1948, and ILO Convention 98 on The Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949; further notes that INEOS is acting in contravention of the rights set out by the UK Government on the gov.uk website sections on Trade union membership: your employment rights and the role of your trade union rep; is concerned that INEOS is in line to receive £9 million in grants from the Scottish Government and has applied for loan guarantee fund support from the UK Government of £150 million; calls on the Government to make it clear to INEOS that actions in breach of ILO conventions and in contradiction of UK law on the rights of employees to be represented by a trade union and to take part in trade union activities is not acceptable in the UK in the 21st century; and further calls for the reinstatement of Mark Lyon and a negotiated settlement of points of difference between INEOS and trades unionists in its employment.]
	Despite the best efforts of the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the local community and the work force of INEOS at Grangemouth, senior management at the plant are behaving like industrial thugs, sacking yet again the Unite convener Mark Lyon on trumped-up charges. As we have given this company £150 million of taxpayers’ money, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to come to this House to explain why this kind of behaviour from senior management is being tolerated?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the early-day motion, which, as it happens, I have read. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to come to the Dispatch Box on this matter, but, given the events surrounding the threat to the plant at Grangemouth, I hope that we see positive engagement between the company and the trade union.

Bob Russell: The Government still have a significant stake in Royal Mail, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the privatised Royal Mail is doing when it comes to securing new customers and not losing the contracts it has? The experience of Polestar, a printing company in my constituency is that, far from doing all it can do to keep customers, middle-ranking officials are hellbent on handing Royal Mail business to competitors.

Andrew Lansley: If my hon. Friend has specific issues relating to the business he should, in addition to raising them with me, raise them with the chief executive of the company itself. It is important to recognise that we have created a whole new opportunity for Royal Mail to improve its services through access to private investment. I think that that will be transformative for Royal Mail. The fact that its share price has risen relative to its issue price is, I think, a reflection of the market sentiment that this is a business with an increasingly prosperous future.

Bridget Phillipson: I enjoyed the interesting commentary from the Leader of the House on women’s history, but perhaps he would like to deal in the here and now and provide Government time for a debate on the position of women in the economy: the growing gender pay gap, the rising
	cost of child care and women’s long-term unemployment. Perhaps we could deal with those issues rather than have a history lesson.

Andrew Lansley: I would be very happy if we were to have such a debate. It would give us an opportunity to highlight the fact that there are more women in jobs than ever before; we are giving parents access to good and affordable child care; we are creating, as I know from my previous responsibilities at the Department of Health, more than 1,000 extra health visitor posts to support women in the initial months after they have given birth; we are increasing the number of midwives to ensure that women have the right care they need during childbirth; and in this Parliament we are making the most positive and comprehensive reform of pensions, including pension entitlements, particularly in respect of the state pension, that give women access to the security of the single-tier pension, which is very important for their peace of mind in older age.

John Stevenson: Greater devolution is being passed to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. This has resulted in places like Carlisle looking on enviously at the devolved powers and responsibilities granted to them. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the future of local government in England, so that places like Carlisle can have the opportunity to see greater powers and responsibilities devolved to them?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter. He will have noted the debate on local government finance reports on Wednesday next week, which provides the opportunity for Members to raise issues relating to local government. We can put the matter in a positive context not only through what has been achieved under the Localism Act 2011, but, more recently, through the ability of local authorities to retain business rate revenue and generate growth in their areas, and to benefit from that through the new homes bonus and growth bonuses. The devolution of the generation of growth and resources in local government in England mirrors what is happening in the national Governments of Scotland and Wales.

Meg Hillier: In passing, may I say how good it is to see a bit more diversity on the Government Front Bench? It is just a shame that three of the four Members on the Front Bench not required to be there have silent roles—perhaps it is time the Leader of the House put in a word for their promotion so that they can speak.
	I am a great champion of university technical colleges—there is one in my constituency—but is it not time we had a debate about the hurdles they face as a result of the age of recruitment being 14 and the sudden speed at which they are being opened? It is time a Minister came to the House to talk in detail about this matter and to answer questions on the roll-out of this policy.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately. In defence of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I point out that one is here for the statement to follow, which I hope we will reach shortly, and the others, as Whips, are frequently on the Bench—and rightly so—in order to discharge their responsibilities.
	In response to the hon. Lady’s question, I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to her directly. I know she is interested in these issues.

Neil Carmichael: May we have a debate to put the spotlight on the success of the rural economy, which is flourishing in my constituency? We have some good examples of small businesses being established, including by women, which we need to salute too.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. The continuing generation of new businesses in rural areas—made possible not least by our planning reforms—has been important for the rural economy. It is important, too, that we continue to deliver access to fast broadband in rural areas, which I know is important to rural businesses, as it gives them the opportunity to run an international business from what would otherwise be thought a distant location.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Treasury has confirmed that 3.4 million people with an annual income of less than £7,225 each paid an average of £113 in national insurance contributions in 2011-12. Perversely, because class 1 NICs are collected weekly, someone on a fixed 20-hour contract on the national minimum wage does not pay NICs, whereas someone on a zero-hours contract with varying hours but earning the same annually does. May we have a debate on weekly calculated NICs and how we can make the system fairer for working people?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, after the Budget we conventionally introduce the Finance Bill, which affords an opportunity to debate these issues. He could also have raised the matter in the recent debate on the National Insurance Contributions Bill—I do not know whether he did. However, he should not have neglected to say that these are precisely the low earners who have benefited most from the Government’s increase in the personal allowance, which has taken 3 million out of income tax altogether.

William Cash: I have asked the Leader of the House over and over again—more than 10 times—for a debate on the Francis report. It was debated this morning on the “Today” programme. The Nuffield report, which has just come out, contains a forward by Francis saying it is time that the regulator’s system-based culture was changed. I have a list of all the occasions this month when business has collapsed in the House, yet the Leader of the House keeps saying there is no time to debate the report. Will he please ensure that the House has a chance to discuss it properly?

Andrew Lansley: I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s frustration, and I hope we can debate the Francis report soon. It is a year today since it was published, and since then much has been done, including the introduction of accountability under the new inspection regime and the new chief inspectors of hospitals, social care and primary care. A tremendous effort has been made to instil a culture of openness and candour in the NHS, to focus on safety and to create an understanding that quality of outcome is the overriding priority. I agree with what Robert Francis said in the Nuffield report foreword:
	“The vast majority of front-line staff, who are consistently hard-working, conscientious and compassionate, have to understand that criticism of poor and unacceptable practice is not aimed at them but is part of a struggle to support everything they”—
	and indeed we—
	“stand for”
	in the NHS. My hon. Friend raises a valid point about business. I hope that all we are doing and all that needs to be done will be the subject of a debate ere long.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House listen to the demands for a debate on women’s employment? Doe he agree that we need more women in highly paid, powerful, entrepreneurial jobs? Is it not through crowdfunding, social impact investment and social entrepreneurialism that many women secure those important jobs? May we have an early debate—before the Budget—so that we can improve the tax treatment of people who invest in social enterprises?

Andrew Lansley: I would welcome a debate on employment, and, indeed, on social enterprises. I cannot promise such a debate immediately, but I know that the House would appreciate it.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, according to the latest data, the number of unemployed women has fallen by 61,000 to 1 million, or 6.7%. The number of women in employment rose by 104,000, or 0.3 percentage points, in the last quarter. More than half a million more women have become employed since the general election.

Tessa Munt: A constituent of mine runs a rural business which depends on internet access to Government agricultural schemes, and next week is the busiest week of his year. However, he has been without internet access for nearly six weeks, since 28 December, when the problem was reported to TalkTalk, his provider. Despite numerous calls to both TalkTalk and BT, nothing has been done. Only BT Openreach can fix the problem, but that organisation is not on the phone. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how my constituent can get urgent attention so that his line fault can be fixed, short of going to the main road and flagging down an Openreach van?

Andrew Lansley: I can tell my hon. Friend that, on more than one occasion in my constituency, flagging down an Openreach engineer’s van is exactly what my constituents have done.
	I know that my hon. Friend will raise this issue with BT herself, but, exceptionally, I shall refer our exchange to BT and ask it to respond directly to her. Under the programme for extending superfast broadband access, contracts are now rolling out across the country, and we are trying to make that happen as quickly as possible. However, we need to ensure that we achieve not just notional access to superfast broadband, but reliable, good-quality access. I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the sad and tragic case of Colin Worton, who, as a soldier serving in
	Northern Ireland in 1983, was wrongly arrested and charged with a sectarian murder? He was subsequently released without conviction, but owing to the reputational damage that has followed him since, he has been unable to work. Would it be appropriate for us to have a debate about the case, and to see what recompense can be given to that former serving soldier?

Andrew Lansley: It might be suitable for a case of that kind to be raised in an Adjournment debate, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to apply for such a debate. However, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will be only too happy to talk to him about the case.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a debate on the impact and application of the excellent “assets of community value” scheme, a very welcome measure that was introduced in the Localism Act 2011? It is clear that some councils—including, I am afraid, Leeds city council—are deliberately turning down applications on the basis that they do not believe that the community could have a bid. Surely that is against the spirit of this important legislation.

Andrew Lansley: It is important for the new right that has been given to communities to be exercised positively. The Government are funding a support programme to help communities to make use of the right to bid for assets of community value, which includes expert advice on grant funding for the development of business plans. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter for local councils, but he has rightly raised it on behalf of his constituents because he wants assets of community value to be recognised, and I hope that his local council will listen to what he has to say about assets of community value in his constituency.

Derek Twigg: The Leader of the House will know the importance of energy-intensive industries to our manufacturing base. Will he therefore arrange for an urgent debate to examine the causes of the delay in the Government obtaining agreement from the European Commission to get compensation for industries for the indirect costs of the carbon floor price, and in particular to examine the concern that the Government are going to cave in over the backdating of that compensation?

Andrew Lansley: I understand the importance of the energy-intensive industries to our manufacturing base, and my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change have been focusing on that issue, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Rather than elaborating further, however, I will ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) to respond to him.

Chris White: It is a year since the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 was rolled out across the country. May we have a debate to review its progress and to see what further measures could be taken to embed its principles into the commissioning process?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Act is now on the statute book and it gives public commissioners a good sense of how they should secure wider social, economic and environmental value when buying services. We hope to publish a one-year-on review of the Act shortly, and we are keen for commissioners to think intelligently about how their money can be used to deliver that value as far as possible. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the publication of the review might stimulate a response, including opportunities for debate in the House.

Russell Brown: Members on both sides of the House have been contacted by their constituents about the growing despair among businesses that use the Clydesdale bank. A directive from the National Bank of Australia is compelling the Clydesdale to put pressure on businesses by calling in loans and withdrawing overdraft facilities. That is resulting in businesses having to close and in the loss of jobs. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available so that this matter can be debated? Those banks are conducting business in a wholly unacceptable manner.

Andrew Lansley: I have visited the Clydesdale bank in Cambridge in years past. It is part of the process of getting challenge and competition into the banking system and, in that context, I hope that banks will show greater customer responsiveness. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point and I will of course ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury to look into this and respond to him, and to see what action could be taken by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Christopher Pincher: GCSE results in Tamworth have improved materially, and that is an important step in providing the skilled and confident local work force of the future. However, teacher knowledge and teaching provision for pupils with dyslexia and dyspraxia can be uneven, locally and across the country. May we have a debate on that important topic, and particularly on the provision of dyslexia and dyspraxia teaching in primary schools, to ensure that all kids get the best start in life?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we think about our motivation to deliver better schools and better skills for our young people, we should think about it not in the aggregate but in relation to delivering the best possible schooling and the highest possible standards for each child. That is our objective. Many children have special educational needs, and we want to ensure that those needs are recognised and responded to. This is part of what the Children and Families Bill is about, and there might or might not be an opportunity to raise that specific point on consideration of amendments on Monday. It is, of course, relevant. Also, my hon. Friends from the Department for Education will be here answering questions on Monday, so my hon. Friend might like to raise the issue then.

Madeleine Moon: May we have an urgent debate on the appeal process for employment and support allowance? It is an expensive process, and it is a nightmare to negotiate for users of the system. A dispute over the work capability assessment must first be reconsidered by the Department for Work and Pensions,
	which can take a month, during which ESA is suspended. Claimants are left with no support and have to claim jobseeker’s allowance. Some have been refused JSA, however, because they are not fit for work. After the DWP has gone through its assessment process, the claimant can go to a tribunal, and 40% of those claims are successful. Would it not be appropriate—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the gist of the matter, which has been eloquently conveyed to the House. The hon. Lady might want an Adjournment debate on the matter; it would be good material.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. We have indeed got the gist of what she was saying, and it is important to us. It is the reason why we have taken action to ensure that the work capability assessment is fit for purpose. Our measures include: requiring Atos to retrain its staff; much closer monitoring; and bringing in new providers to carry out assessments. We have also announced that we will seek additional provision to conduct WCAs. I hope that we will continue on the programme, which has been an important and successful one, to ensure that those in receipt of benefits are subject to a proper assessment to see whether they are fit for work or eligible for ESA.

Mark Pawsey: May we have a debate on the Government’s proposals to introduce a charge on plastic carrier bags? No such opportunity is planned before the introduction of the charge as the necessary powers are available through existing legislation? This is a matter of concern to many, including small businesses, which are anxious not to have additional burdens imposed on them, and the plastics recycling sector, which is concerned that incentives to use biodegradable material will lead to contamination of the waste stream.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises points that he and others have been at pains to ensure are part of the discussion taking place in a consultation. We are in the process of ensuring that we get the regulations right. I have had an opportunity to see how this measure works in Wales and I think it is a good thing to do. It will make a difference by reducing plastic waste dramatically, but we need to make sure that the regulations work effectively.

Paul Flynn: Early-day motion 1035 describes an extraordinary rip-off, which, according to the European Commission, will cost British taxpayers £17.6 billion.
	[That this House believes that the UK has been ripped off by Électricité de France (EDF) which has agreed to sell future electricity in France at £38 per Mwh while pressuring the Government to pay £92.50 per Mwh for Hinkley Point electricity, double the present price, index-linked and guaranteed against EDF loss for 35 years; and further believes this massive subsidy will inflate electricity bills for four decades.]
	Why did the Government make an agreement with EDF to pay a price for electricity that is double the current going rate and three times what EDF will charge in future in France, and then guarantee and index link that price for 35 years? These details have never been discussed in this House—should they not be?

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, when making statements to this House, explaining carefully the structure of the support that is to be given and the contract for difference that is going to be provided. Contrary to the point the hon. Gentleman makes, we should be emphasising the necessity, at this stage, of ensuring that we have the security of knowing that we have relatively carbon-free production from a secure source that is able to balance our requirements for energy in the future.

Damian Hinds: Many hon. Members will have heard from constituents who have overpaid for the congestion charge, or even when filing their own tax return, because of misleading websites or search returns. May we have a debate on making the internet a more consumer-friendly place, so that our constituents can find the genuine websites of Government, charities and trademark owners, not scammers, chancers and rip-off merchants?

Andrew Lansley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We do take customer confidence in online services, especially those relating to Government services most widely, very seriously. The Minister for Civil Society has commissioned a cross-government exercise to gather information about the operation of third party websites offering services associated with official Government services, so that we can have a full understanding of the scale and nature of the problem. That will inform Ministers’ discussions on the best way to address the issues caused by the misleading activity of some third party websites.

Diana Johnson: As the Member of Parliament whose constituency contains the excellent Hull university, I am concerned to hear press reports that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wants to scrap the £300 million student opportunities fund. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chief Secretary to make a statement to the House explaining why, after trebling tuition fees, scrapping the education maintenance allowance and making cuts to further education, he now wants to axe the only part of the universities budget that is about assisting students from poorer backgrounds to go to university?

Andrew Lansley: In the midst of that, the hon. Lady might have mentioned that applications to university are at record levels, including specifically from those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In relation to the point she raises, I know that she has heard Ministers at the Dispatch Box say that if there is any announcement to be made, it will be made in due course.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: At the moment the Environment Agency is still using a premium telephone number. It is owned by a French company called Teleperformance, which is turning over £2 billion a year. I have villages that are being evacuated at the moment. Can we please have a local number that people can phone without feeling that they are being ripped off?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to say that my colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are in their places on the Front Bench and I know that
	they will continue to raise this issue with the Environment Agency. My hon. Friend will also have heard what the Prime Minister had to say about this. I hope that he is therefore assured that we are taking every step we can to give people access to high quality information in a way that does not impose unacceptable costs on them.

Kevin Brennan: May we have an urgent debate or question on the Government’s approach to local television? In Northern Ireland and England, the new local television services will be allocated channel 8 on Freeview, but in Wales and Scotland, the plan is to allocate them channel 26. These are public service broadcasting entities which should have due prominence under the legislation. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to come to the House to tell us what they are doing to ensure that those channels are given more prominent status on Freeview?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to reach back into my past as a member of the Puttnam commission and the Standing Committee on the Communications Act 2003, but my recollection is that the Act gave the responsibility to Ofcom. I will therefore ask my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to check with Ofcom and respond to him on the points that he raises.

Peter Bone: May we have a statement about the Prime Minister’s long-term economic plan as it affects north Northamptonshire, which my right hon. Friend visited recently? Unemployment in Kettering has fallen by 26% in a year, in Wellingborough by 28% and in Corby by more than 36%. Would that allow us to say what a disaster Labour made and how much better the Conservatives would do on their own without the Liberal Democrats?

Andrew Lansley: I wish I could find time for such a debate. There is always pressure on Government business, but such a debate would be very welcome. Apart from anything else, it would give the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who is in his place, an opportunity to welcome the progress of the Government’s long-term economic plan and how it is creating more jobs and opportunities for his constituents. Even the shadow Leader of the House might like to join in, as unemployment has fallen by 20% in Wallasey in the last year.

Andy Sawford: Tempting though it is to switch my question, I want to ask about a serious matter of business. Papers released to me this week by the Department for Transport in response to a freedom of information request reveal that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is secretly briefing Conservatives about plans to increase the speed limit on HGVs from 40 mph to 50 mph. That is surely a matter that should be brought before the House properly as there is a great deal of parliamentary and public concern. Can the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen?

Andrew Lansley: I fear that I was not here throughout Transport questions, so I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had the chance to raise that with Ministers. I have no knowledge of what he says, but I will of course raise it with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department and ask them to respond to him.

Andrew Bridgen: As I have pointed out in previous business questions, Leicestershire is one of the lowest funded counties for education in the whole country. Teachers also tell me that schools have been missing out on the pupil premium because of the reluctance of parents to sign their children up for the free school meals to which they are entitled. May we have a statement on what action the Government can take to emphasise to parents how important it is to sign up for free school meals, and may we have a debate on universal credit and how it may allow the identification of families who qualify for the pupil premium without needing to reference the take-up of free school meals?

Andrew Lansley: I recall the important point that my hon. Friend made about the education funding formula and I look forward to further announcements from colleagues soon. On his point about access to the pupil premium because of free school meals, the under-registration rate in 2013 is estimated to have been 11%, down from 14% in 2012. This is an important point. The pupil premium is an important part of the allocation of resources to support disadvantaged pupils. To support a more efficient system the Department has developed an award-winning free school meals eligibility checking system. This system enables local authorities very quickly to determine whether a parent can claim free school meals by linking benefits information from the Department for Work and Pensions with information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Home Office.

John Glen: Bishop Wordsworth’s grammar school in my constituency is again facing considerable pressure, redundancies and radical curriculum cuts this year as a consequence of the pressure caused by 16-to-18 underfunding. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on school funding so that we can ensure that outstanding schools, particularly grammar schools, are not severely damaged by this gap that exists at 16 to 18?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend will have heard me say, I hope our hon. Friends at the Department for Education will be in a position to tell us more about the progress we can make towards a fairer funding formula where the funding for schools is related to the characteristics of the pupils, not historical funding allocations. I cannot give my hon. Friend a timetable for those announcements, but he will have noted that I mentioned previously that there is an opportunity to ask questions of our hon. Friends at the Department for Education at Education questions on Monday.

Rehman Chishti: Next week the Football Association is holding an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall on grassroots football, and Rainham school for girls in my constituency is delighted to have been asked to represent England at the Futsal world cup in Italy this year. May we have an urgent debate on increasing and supporting participation in grassroots football? I should also declare that I am a parliamentary fellow with the Football Association.

Andrew Lansley: I applaud what my hon. Friend is doing and I am sure the whole House looks forward to seeing the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. Members support grassroots football and football at every level
	and want to see the best possible governance of football, and, as I know from my experience as Leader of the House, they have frequently asked for a debate on football. There has not yet been an opportunity to have one, but Members might collectively wish to talk to the Backbench Business Committee about that.

Alun Cairns: The Secretary of State for Education is rightly placing demanding expectations on schools, pupils and teachers in efforts to drive up standards with testing, longer school days, and improved discipline. Sadly, constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan and across Wales will not benefit from these expectations and innovations, and after 15 years of Labour rule in Wales there is a worrying divergence in standards and the programme for international student assessment outcomes show an even greater divergence from England in recent years. May we have a debate on education to consider the different approaches that are taken so we can compare and contrast the best practice across each of the nations?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an important point and I wish it were possible. There are so many issues on which it would be helpful to have a debate, not least to be able to look at how the measures being brought forward by our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary and his colleagues are promoting improvements in standards, including making sure that we have the right discipline in schools and the right academic ambition. Progress has clearly been made as shown by the improvements in results and the dramatic reduction in the number of pupils in underperforming schools. There is still some distance to travel in terms of the PISA results, and that is being undertaken by the Government, but the continuing disparity between England and Wales must concern my hon. Friend and his constituents in Wales, and I am sure it would be helpful for this House to address that.

David Burrowes: While I was in Green Lanes, Palmers Green yesterday morning, I counted 12 betting shops along that stretch of road, which is saturation level. Following the welcome Department for Culture, Media and Sport review of fixed odds betting terminals, may we have a statement on any necessary additional local planning or licensing powers, such as a cumulative impact test, so that our local communities can regain the power to control their local high streets?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly raises an issue that has been the subject of debate in this House, including quite recently when we were looking at the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill and related issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is sitting beside me, and if I may I will ask him to respond particularly in relation to the powers of local authorities in respect of betting shops in local areas.

Andrew Stephenson: Over the past two years, four new multi-million pound primary schools have opened up across Pendle, addressing the huge shortfall in school places that was left by the previous Government who ignored rising birth rates in the area and let immigration soar. May we have a debate on the funding of additional school places as part of this Government’s long-term economic plan?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which did not build any schools, completely ignored the demographic changes that were already evident in relation to births and the number of youngsters coming through into primary schools. I am delighted that he points to what we are doing. We will be spending £18 billion on school buildings over this Parliament, which is more than double the amount that Labour spent in its first two terms combined.

Jeremy Lefroy: When I had the pleasure of visiting Silkmore community primary school in Stafford, the inspirational head, Julie Mowbray, said how important the pupil premium and the funding for child care for two-year-olds were in her school, which has a high percentage of children receiving the pupil premium. May we have a debate on the effect of the pupil premium and child care funding for two-year-olds?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that is being done in his constituency. I cannot promise a debate immediately. He will have heard what I said about opportunities for questions, but it is important, none the less, that we have the opportunity to discuss how the implementation of our commitment to increase places for two-year-olds—this follows the introduction of our scheme for three-year-olds—will enable all young people to have access to the best possible early start in education.

Glyn Davies: At yesterday’s Welsh Grand Committee, the Opposition completely torpedoed what we thought was an all-party agreement to grant tax-raising powers to the National Assembly
	for Wales and to make the Welsh Government fiscally accountable. May we have a statement in this Chamber on what was a stunning U-turn by the Opposition so that we can expose Labour as an anti-devolutionary and anti-Welsh party?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what happened at the Welsh Grand Committee. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the House and I visited it yesterday morning for the first hour of the debate. Like my hon. Friend, I was astonished to hear the Opposition saying that they were opposed to this major extension of devolution to Wales. We are in a position to give the people of Wales the opportunity, through a referendum, to decide whether they want devolution. The Opposition seem to be against that.

Andrew Jones: In Harrogate and Knaresborough, we have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in the country. I recognise that we are seeing falls in youth unemployment nationally, but the problem still remains worryingly high. Please may we have a debate about preparing young people for work?

Andrew Lansley: I hope we will have further opportunities to debate that matter. The coalition Government can be proud of their achievements, including the 1.5 million apprenticeships during this Parliament, the extension of traineeships, and the commitment that young people should be in education, employment or training and that the skills they acquire should be increasingly appropriate for work in the future. We should take opportunities to discuss those achievements and support them.

Winter Floods

Eric Pickles: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government on the action taken in the light of the recent floods and extreme weather. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is unable to update the House today, but I am sure that we all wish him a speedy recovery to his usual robust health.
	One of the defining characteristics of Britain is the weather, but in recent months it has been particularly savage. Part of the country has been subject to flooding by the sea, rivers, surface water and ground water. In December, we saw the highest surge on the east coast for 60 years and this January has been the wettest since George III was on the throne. We will continue to face severe weather well into next week.
	I want to put on the record my utmost sympathy for those affected. I know from my constituency the effects of flooding, and once the floodwaters go down there is the smell, the sludge and the enormous time it takes to dry a building out. Flooding has devastating effects on communities. I know it has been especially difficult for those families that have been flooded for many weeks and for those that have been flooded on more than one occasion in recent months. I think we have all been struck by the stark images of the stranded residents on the Somerset levels and their brave resolve to continue their daily lives, be it by boat or tractor.
	I also want to pay tribute to the hard work of councils, the Environment Agency’s staff on the ground and our emergency services, who have supported communities 24 hours a day, literally going through hell and high water. Britain’s flood defences have protected more than 1.2 million properties since 5 December and the Thames barrier has protected £200 billion-worth of property. None the less, it is evident that those defences are taking a pounding. There is damage to transport infrastructure and sea defences, including the railway line at Dawlish, as well as to power networks.
	More than 5,000 properties have been flooded, including 40 in Somerset. There are two severe flood warnings in the west country, 61 flood warnings and 223 flood alerts in place. Cobra has met regularly since 29 January and has responded to every local request for assistance. The Prime Minister will chair a further meeting of Cobra later today.
	Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I can now report to the House the Government’s plans for further funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management. In the short term, I can announce that the Government will provide an additional £130 million for emergency repairs and maintenance, £30 million in the current year and £100 million next year. That will cover costs incurred during the current emergency response and recovery, as well as essential repairs to ensure that defences are maintained.
	Emergency work on repairs started during December’s coastal surge. However, the full picture of the damage caused to flood defences has not yet emerged and the weather conditions have proved savage. The Government
	will therefore carry out a rapid review of the additional work needed to restore our flood defences and maintain them in target condition.
	In addition, I am putting before the House today details of how my Department is enhancing the terms of the Bellwin scheme, which helps local authorities in England to meet the exceptional and unexpected costs associated with protecting lives and properties. The changes I am announcing today include paying Bellwin grant at 100% above the threshold instead of the normal default 85%; allowing upper-tier authorities with responsibility for fire to claim on a comparable basis to stand-alone fire authorities; reducing Bellwin thresholds for all county councils and unitary authorities; and extending the eligible period until the end of March 2014.
	No council has yet made a formal claim under the Bellwin scheme, so no council has lost out as a result of these new announcements. Indeed, far more councils will be eligible to claim. The enhanced scheme terms reflect the exceptional nature of the recent weather events and the challenges facing local authorities in their roles as first responders. However, it is clear that the Bellwin scheme needs further reform, an opportunity that was sadly missed under the last Administration. We will be undertaking a full review of the Bellwin scheme in due course, while ensuring that councils continue to have the right incentives to stop flooding happening in the first place. I can also tell the House that immediately after this statement, Ministers will be holding a teleconference with council leaders from across the west country to discuss further flood recovery measures.
	Of course, flood prevention is as important as flood recovery. The additional funding that we have outlined today will allow the Government programme of capital investment to continue, fulfilling our commitment to improve defences throughout England. We have already put in place investment plans to improve the protection of at least 465,000 houses by the end of the decade. In addition, we are today announcing 42 new flood defence schemes for 2014-15. Together with other projects beginning construction in 2014-15, this will protect more than 42,000 households. This includes schemes in Salford, which will improve protection for more than 2,000 homes and businesses; Clacton, where more than 3,000 homes are currently at risk; and Willerby in the east riding of Yorkshire, where more than 8,000 properties will be better protected. There are also smaller, but no less important, schemes in Lincoln, Stockton and Todmorden.
	We will work to defend both town and country. For the record, and with respect, I have to say that I do not agree with the comments of the noble Lord Smith, who implied that there was a choice between town and country.
	Looking further forward, we have made an unprecedented long-term six-year commitment to record levels of capital investment in improving defences: £370 million in 2015-16 and then the same in real terms each year, rising to over £400 million by the end of this decade. By the autumn statement, we will have published a six-year programme of work running right up to 2021, including a new long-term investment strategy on flood defences. We will provide an assessment of the future need for flood and coastal defences, taking account of the latest risk maps and economic analysis.
	We should certainly look at how councils plan and mitigate flood risk, yet I note that the level of development on flood-risk areas is now at its lowest rate since modern records began, and 99% of planning applications for new homes in flood-risk areas are in line with expert advice. But, as the dark skies clear, there will be lessons to be learned, from the way in which we help local authorities to the role of quangos and the need for their local accountability, the influence of man-made policies on dredging, the effect of tree planting on our landscape and rivers, and the resilience of our nation as a whole throughout the 21st century.
	The measures that the coalition Government have announced today provide a clear commitment to reduce the risks of flooding and coastal erosion. The additional funding means that, over this Parliament, this Government will be investing more than £3.1 billion, compared with £2.7 billion in the previous five years under the last Labour Government. This is more than ever before, in both cash and real terms, and we will spend it well and wisely. We cannot control the weather, but we can and will provide the security that hard-working families deserve to allow them to get on with their daily lives. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and for early sight of it. I begin by joining him in conveying, on behalf of the Opposition, our best wishes to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—we very much hope that he makes a speedy recovery. Can the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government tell us which of the Under-Secretaries of State will be dealing with DEFRA’s response in the Secretary of State’s absence?
	As the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government rightly said, the situation facing communities in the Somerset levels remains extremely serious. The floods have not only left homes wrecked, they have left businesses facing ruin and severe difficulties in accessing schools, workplaces and essential services. More families have faced the trauma of being evacuated from their homes overnight. The emergency services and Environment Agency staff continue to do an excellent job on the ground and have been consistently praised by residents, despite the serious criticisms of the lack of national leadership since the crisis began.
	The fact is that the Government were caught out by the floods and Ministers took far too long to recognise the seriousness of the situation. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand why the Prime Minister’s claim yesterday that the Government’s response has not been slow will have been met with incredulity by the people of Somerset? The fact that DEFRA cannot answer parliamentary questions on when it first received requests for assistance from Somerset county council and Sedgemoor district council says everything about the chaos and confusion that has beset its response. There have now been 21 meetings of Cobra, but it is far from clear what all the talking has achieved. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister became so exasperated that yesterday he put himself in the chair.
	The funding announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, and by the Secretary of State today, is welcome, but let us be clear that that is simply restoring, and for just over one year, the reduction in annual spending on flood protection that has taken place under this Government. The Government’s own figures, published last month by DEFRA, show that they reduced the budget from £670 million in 2010-11 to £573 million in 2011-12, a cut of over £97 million. The budget has remained at a similar level for the past two years. Reversing that cut for just over a year is a complete admission by the Government that they got it wrong. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the additional resources will be added to the baseline of the flood protection budget for future years, or is the intention to cut the budget again next year?
	How will the Government close the £80 million hole in the partnership funding that Ministers claim they will be able to secure from external contributions but which they have not yet been able to secure? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Prime Minister was wrong when he again claimed yesterday that more would be spent in the four years between 2011 and 2015 than in the previous four years?
	DEFRA’s own figures show that £2.37 billion was spent between 2007-8 and 2010-11 and that £2.34 billion will be spent between 2011-12 and 2014-15. The Prime Minister and the Government really must stop fiddling the figures. The Secretary of State again used numbers today that are different from those that the Prime Minister used in the House yesterday. Thanks to a freedom of information request, we know that the Environment Secretary cut more than 40% from the domestic climate change budget last year. Was that really the right priority for the biggest cut to any DEFRA programme?
	With regard to the immediate challenges facing people in the south-west, councils will welcome the announcement that support under the Bellwin scheme will now be paid at 100%, but why did the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government say last month that he would pay only 85% of the eligible costs, when the scale of the damage was already clear? Will he also confirm when he expects the electricity supply to be restored to the homes that have been affected by power cuts?
	What specific assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give regarding the restoration of rail services west of Exeter? He will understand the disastrous consequences for the region’s economy of the loss of that service. We have all seen how serious the damage in Dawlish is and understand that this is not straightforward, but can he be clearer than the Prime Minister managed to be in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) yesterday about what can be done in the short and long term.
	After the 2007 floods, the previous Government commissioned the Pitt review, and Pitt’s report provided the blueprint for action to improve flood resilience and response. Why did the Government stop producing progress reports on the 92 recommendations in January 2012 despite 46 of them still being badged as “ongoing” and many having no planned completion date? At the time of the final update, the recommendations that had not been implemented in full included all the recommendations on knowing where and when it will flood, six on reducing the risk of flooding, 10 on being
	rescued and cared for during an emergency, and seven on maintaining power supplies. Why have the Government chosen not to establish either the Cabinet Committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding, or the national resilience forum, both of which were recommended by the Pitt review? Will the Secretary of State make a clear commitment to publishing a further progress report on each of the recommendations in the Pitt review by the end of this month?
	Yesterday the Prime Minister tweeted that there would be “no restrictions on help” for those affected by the flooding. Will the Secretary of State explain precisely what that means? Will he tell the House whether people are still being charged at a premium rate when they call the floods helpline?

Eric Pickles: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The very able Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), will be dealing with these matters.
	I am quite surprised that the hon. Lady is in a position to reply to the statement, because given all the chuntering that took place during my delivery of it, I did not think she was paying an awful lot of attention. I had the opportunity—this is like a double whammy for me—of listening to her on Sky this morning, when she explained to viewers that the previous Government had enhanced the amount of money that was available for flooding following the problems in 2007. She is condemned out of her own mouth, because the facts are straightforward and out there—under the last five years of the Labour Government, they spent £2.7 billion and we will be spending £3.1 billion. You cannot argue with those figures.
	The hon. Lady said “What a shock” about our providing 85% of Bellwin. That is the normal course of events. Perhaps she does not understand how the system works. This is money that we use to compensate, and no claims have been made as yet. It is normal procedure to set it at 85%. Perhaps she may consider this: in the 30 years that Bellwin has been in existence, this is the very first time that the threshold has been reduced. This is a real help to local councils, and she should not be so parsimonious about it.
	With regard to the railway, the hon. Lady said, “Why didn’t we know?” She just needs to look at those dramatic television pictures of the railway at Dawlish—Brunel’s great, beautiful railway. We are not in a position to make an assessment of how long this is going to take because right now, as we speak, people are working to shore up the bank and protect the damaged railway from the next surge that is coming. It is utterly ridiculous to expect anything other than that.
	The hon. Lady asked why we have not updated the Pitt review. She will recall that we set up the Flood Forecasting Centre, which has been producing very straightforward predictions. Perhaps she should spend a little less time in the television studios and more time with Google.

Anne McIntosh: May I convey our best wishes to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for his recovery?
	Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirm that the Prime Minister yesterday stated that he is ordering a review of all the spending, including the 2004-5 points system that we inherited, which has led, I believe, to some of the problems? Will he indicate how the allocation of spending has been divided between capital and revenue, and how maintenance spending within the revenue allocation has been divided among repairs, dredging and desilting? Will the facilities, including pumps, be returned to the drainage boards—as we hope will be the case—in order for them to pay for them to be repaired and returned in a good state?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes some reasoned and telling points. I have spoken several times this morning to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who mentioned a letter he had received from my hon. Friend. We certainly hope and are keen to update the figures given to the Select Committee. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited my hon. Friend’s constituency to look at the damage and potential problems. My hon. Friend’s experience in everything she does is of great value to the House.

Alison Seabeck: In response to a question asked yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the Prime Minister said:
	“Where extra investment and protections are needed, they must be put in place.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 269.]
	Those good words were followed today by a £30 million pledge from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, yet the local enterprise partnerships, local authorities, local transport boards and people in the south-west simply do not believe them. Last year we were promised £31 million—more than the £30 million—for resilience work, but it has disappeared. It is not good enough.

Eric Pickles: Our discussions with local authorities in the south-west area have been far more constructive than the hon. Lady has been. It is extraordinary for her to just dismiss £130 million as though it were a mere bagatelle. This Government have shown real commitment and we will consult local government leaders on the Bellwin threshold straight after this statement.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May I indulge myself by thanking the emergency services, the Environment Agency people on the ground and everybody who is at this precise moment trying to get people out of houses in Moorland and Fordgate?
	One of our problems is that Sedgemoor district council, which the Secretary of State knows well, is dipping into reserves to try to make sure it can do everything it can, including evacuating cattle. Is there any chance that the Bellwin formula could be used to help Sedgemoor district council in particular to recoup the money it is now having to spend to safeguard its areas?

Eric Pickles: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. That is exactly what Bellwin is designed to do. I can confirm that, as yet, Sedgemoor council has not made
	any claims. I also give my hon. Friend an undertaking that when formal claims are made—we do not require everything to be in at one time—we will do our best to ensure that the payment is made promptly. I assure him that the changes will be very helpful indeed to Sedgemoor.

John Woodcock: My constituency and parts of Cumbria are still suffering with fresh outbreaks of flooding. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the local authority will be eligible for the extra resources he has pledged? Is he as concerned as I am by the determination of South Lakes district council to build new houses on floodplains? It is not Conservative-controlled, in case he is worried about criticising his chums.

Eric Pickles: I suspect that might concern my coalition partners. I can recognise an elephant trap when it is there.
	With regard to eligibility, absolutely—the local authority will of course be eligible for the scheme. The hon. Gentleman’s council has not yet made a claim, which is not unreasonable, and that is why we have extended it to the end of March.
	The amount of building on the floodplain is at an all-time low. In fact, it is the lowest—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry, but there are noises off. As I was trying to say before I was bullied by Opposition Members, such building is at the lowest level ever. I think that about 99% of objections by experts in relation to floodplains have been successful.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not think that we need to worry about the Secretary of State being bullied. Any Bradford Bulls supporter well knows how to deal with being bullied.

Jeremy Browne: To offer a balanced view, it is fair to say that many residents of Somerset feel that the Government were slow off the mark, but they are now grateful that the Government appear to be acting in a way that matches the enormous size of the challenge, particularly in dredging the River Tone and the River Parrett. Will the extra funding support, which the Secretary of State talked about today and the Prime Minister talked about yesterday, be made available in the long term for long-term solutions? There is now flooding right across Taunton Deane, not just on the Levels, and dealing with the problem requires a river catchment approach and a longer-term view, not only immediate responses to emergencies.

Eric Pickles: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the question is one of river catchments and long-term solutions. Our priority is obviously to deal with the immediate aftermath, but we clearly need to look at dredging. The previous Government probably made a mistake in ending the dredging.
	For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I referred to being “bullied”, I was using the term ironically.

Tom Blenkinsop: I have just heard and read the Secretary of State’s statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and there
	was no mention of resources for emergency services. Between September and December last year, my East Cleveland constituency suffered badly from the surges and floods on the east coast of England. Instigated by the Secretary of State, there has been a cumulative cut of £4 million to Cleveland fire brigade over this Parliament, and there will be a further cumulative cut of £5.96 million to 2017-18. It is not a statutory requirement to respond to flooding, so how will emergency services deal with flooding in the future?

Lindsay Hoyle: Before the Secretary of State stands up, may I say that we need quick questions and brevity in answers? I want to get every hon. Member in on this important statement, but there is a very important and over-subscribed debate to follow.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman asks whether we should make responding to flooding a statutory requirement for our fire authorities. I am afraid that that is a rather old-fashioned view. How we respond to emergencies is well set out through local resilience forums: it relates not just to the fire authority, but goes right across local authorities, including to the health authority and the like. Frankly, those obligations are laid down in legislation and work perfectly well.

Neil Parish: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that we need to protect both town and countryside. I believe that we have to force the sea back and keep it out, not retreat from it, as we have done for years. We need a tidal sluice on the end of the Parrett, and to make sure that we dredge our rivers, such as the Exe and the Axe. I really welcome today’s statement.

Eric Pickles: It is important for us to emphasise that we should not just look after people who live in towns or rural areas, but ensure that agriculture can survive and thrive in rural areas, so my hon. Friend makes an absolutely excellent point.

Chris Williamson: The Secretary of State said that the Government will work to defend “both town and country” and that there are lessons to be learned about the “resilience of our nation”, so I assume that he regrets the swingeing cuts to flood defence work. In view of the increased extreme weather, will he accept that it is time to implement the Pitt review in relation to the statutory responsibilities of the fire and rescue services, and to reverse the cuts that he is making to firefighters? [Interruption.] There will 5,000 fewer firefighters by 2015 than there were in 2010. They do heroic work in rescuing people—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that the Secretary of State has certainly got the message. It is not helpful for other hon. Members to join in, because I may have to ask for the question to be repeated if I cannot hear it. I want to get you all in, but please help me to do so.

Eric Pickles: Heaven forbid that the last question should be repeated! The hon. Gentleman is simply gullible if he believes everything that comes from the unions. He seems to be more interested in union rights than in the people who are suffering because of the flooding.

Laurence Robertson: I met the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom I wish well, on Monday to talk about dredging. He seemed to suggest that there could be local input. By that, I think he meant input from local councils. What discussions is the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government having with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency about reintroducing dredging for many of our rivers?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I recall going around Tewkesbury with him and looking at the damage that was done to a local public house. I remember the resilience of the people in that area. Dredging is particularly appropriate for man-made landscapes like the levels. It might not necessarily work terribly well elsewhere. I have fields that are flooded in Essex. That works extremely well and has protected the area. We are willing to have those discussions, but there is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Diana Johnson: On 25 November in Communities and Local Government questions, I asked the Secretary of State about the contradiction in the Government’s Help to Buy scheme being heavily promoted in areas that are at risk of flooding. He promised to get back to me, but I have not heard anything. I wonder whether he might answer that question now.

Eric Pickles: I apologise for not getting back to the hon. Lady. If she heard the statement, she will know that building on floodplains that have a high risk of flooding is at an all-time low.

Diana Johnson: Your Government is promoting it!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Nicola Blackwood: This winter in Oxford West and Abingdon, flooding has led to loss of life, community chaos and property flooding. It is not only deeply distressing for residents but has brought our economy to a standstill. I am very grateful for the commitment to provide emergency funding and I hope that my council will apply. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is long-term solutions, such as the western conveyance that we are campaigning for in Oxford, that will ensure we are not back here having the same debate every year?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is a redoubtable campaigner for her constituents. I have no doubt that she will raise that issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he returns. We are looking for long-term solutions.

Clive Efford: On Christmas eve, 35 properties in my constituency were flooded, not because any flood defences were overwhelmed but because of the failure of the Environment Agency to keep a culvert clear. Its failure to accept responsibility for that has major implications for future insurance premiums for my constituents. In addition, it has altered the area of the floodplain. When my constituents renew their
	insurance, they are finding that it has gone up from an average of £500 a year to nearly £6,000 a year. Will the Secretary of State discuss those matters with the Environment Agency? Will he get it to accept responsibility for that event and discuss with it the implications of the floodplain for my constituents’ insurance policies?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has a deserved reputation for dealing with his constituents’ problems assiduously. I will ensure that the specific case that he makes is raised with the agency.

Sheryll Murray: Will the Secretary of State join me in offering sincere condolences to the holiday towns and villages in my constituency that have suffered from severe coastal flooding? Looe, Polperro, Seaton, Tregonhawke, Cawsand, Kingsand, Cremyll and the Wild Futures monkey sanctuary have all been affected. Will he send out the clear message that he will do everything that he can to help those places, and with half-term coming up, will he send out a message to the wider public that south-east Cornwall is still very much open for business?

Eric Pickles: Many Members of the House are familiar with my hon. Friend’s constituency and have many happy memories of it. The changes that we are making to the Bellwin scheme will benefit Cornwall directly.

Jonathan Edwards: Following serious flooding in England in 2007, the UK Government accessed €162 million from the European Union solidarity fund. Why have the UK Government not accessed that fund, as a member state, following the storms this year, which have hit west Wales hard? In failing to do so, are they not guilty of absolving themselves of their responsibility to help Welsh communities in times of crisis?

Eric Pickles: Matters relating to flooding are devolved—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me answer his question, I will remind him that that scheme also has a threshold, which I believe is €3 billion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We want brief questions, and I will cut off the debate at 12.30 pm. It is up to hon. Members to look after themselves.

Tessa Munt: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the extra help for Somerset, and I recognise the expertise of the Axe Brue Internal Drainage Board and the whole catchment approach. Will the Secretary of State consider extraordinary changes to the planning laws, so that any statutory consultee that relies on a historic view of an 100-year floodplain changes that because it is no longer appropriate?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is a bad example of being brief. Hon. Members must be brief; otherwise, they will stop colleagues getting in.

Eric Pickles: I will have a look at that.

Caroline Nokes: Flooding from failed sewers has a devastating effect on householders and is a health hazard. In Romsey there is a particular problem with Victorian sewers that have been overwhelmed by the ingress of surface water. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend provide that the extended Bellwin scheme will assist fiscally prudent counties such as Hampshire to help our communities?

Eric Pickles: I think Hampshire has behaved particularly well throughout the crisis, and in liaising with my Department and with DEFRA it has been exceptionally good. It is not about the type of activity; there is a threshold, and the decisions we have just made will help Hampshire with the threshold on Bellwin.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that Norfolk’s sea defences held up remarkably well against a record surge? Most repairs have been carried out, but one section that has not been repaired is along Beach road at Brancaster. Will he talk to the Environment Agency about that important stretch of flood defences?

Eric Pickles: I certainly will. We tried to use that period to get a lot of emergency work done, but I suspect it might not have been possible or safe to have looked at those defences then. I will remind the Environment Agency, which I am sure will be round as soon as possible.

Roger Williams: As well as taking on extra responsibilities, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), will chair a committee for action on the Somerset levels. Will the Secretary of State ensure that funds and resources are available immediately for the important work that needs to be done?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend does not need to rely on me; the Prime Minister said so loud and clear yesterday.

Mark Pritchard: The floods have caused huge anxiety not only in south-west England but in some parts of Shropshire. Does the Secretary of State agree that one way to mitigate future flooding is to ensure that new home development is not excessive, and also bears in mind the physical infrastructure such as drainage in local towns and villages?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is perhaps one of the cleverest people to lobby a Minister. I got the message.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have put forward £4.6 million for better weather forecasting by using space technology, and that we are only one of three countries in the world doing that, so in future the Met Office will be able to predict these incidents better?

Eric Pickles: I have been involved with Cobra right the way through this process, and one thing that has genuinely surprised me is how frighteningly accurate the weather forecasting has been. If that is because of space technology, it is money well spent.

George Hollingbery: Many of the villages in my constituency are currently flooded, but none more so than Hambledon where 1 foot of water has been running up and down the high street for four weeks, and probably will for another four. Spending £3.5 million will sort that out for ever. Please will the Secretary of State intervene?

Eric Pickles: That is a good illustration of the effect of ground water, and we should be particularly proud of the way that community organisations have worked together, especially in looking after the vulnerable.

Andrew Percy: When hundreds of homes flooded in my constituency in December, it unfortunately coincided with the death of President Mandela and did not get the coverage we are seeing at the moment. I welcome the commitment made today, particularly in relation to Bellwin and the funding measures announced at Snaith of £3.2 million. May I commend to the Secretary of State North Lincolnshire council and Councillor Liz Redfern, who made £300 available to every flood victim within a week? The council has set up interest-free loans of £1,000 for all victims, to be paid back over five years.

Eric Pickles: Liz is a terrific leader and this is an example of how adaptable councils are. One thing has been noticeable: when we look at the television pictures of what is happening, we can always spot a local councillor, filling up the sandbags, taking care of the locality. That is what it means to be a local councillor—not just talking about politics, but offering practical help.

Tobias Ellwood: Parts of my constituency flooded twice over Christmas, though floods are predicted to take place only once in every 100 years. Bournemouth council and local agencies met affected residents on Monday and the big question was how Bournemouth applies for part of the £130 million emergency funding. Could the Secretary of State please write to Bournemouth borough council to explain the process?

Eric Pickles: I am looking at the schemes here and it appears that my hon. Friend has been successful. Perhaps we could have a word afterwards.

Sarah Newton: The statement today will be very reassuring to people in Cornwall. What assessment has the Secretary of State made about the money that Cornwall will get as a result of the welcome reform to the Bellwin scheme?

Eric Pickles: We will be talking carefully with local authorities about the level at which the new threshold should come in. Although we have not yet made an announcement, we are consulting informally. I can safely say that the sum will be an awful lot more than my hon. Friend would have got under the previous regime.

Craig Whittaker: The announcement today on the reform of Bellwin, including thresholds, is welcomed by many of us who have been lobbying for change since the Calder Valley floods of two summers ago. Does the announcement on river
	dredging include rivers like the Calder in the Calder Valley, despite the fact that the Environment Agency is against dredging?

Eric Pickles: Oh my goodness, I have the schemes here. Four schemes have been approved in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which will help enormously, and of course we are willing to talk to the Environment Agency about what is needed.

Andrew George: Given the multimillion pound damage to communities around my constituency this very week, can the Secretary of State assure me that of the £130 million available, some will be available for the rail service, and that there will be greater evidence of collaboration between Network Rail and the Environment Agency?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the railways. We recognise that they are an important economic asset. I know that it is something that the Prime Minister personally is very concerned about, and arrangements are being made as we speak.

Angela Watkinson: What discussions have been held or it is planned to hold with the insurance industry to reassure people with properties in flood-risk areas?

Eric Pickles: We regularly talk to the insurance industry. The Water Bill will go some way towards providing reassurance. Its passage through Parliament will show that we have agreed to continue to abide by the commitments under the 2008 statement of principles. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, has just whispered to me that if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) has a particular point in mind, he would be happy to deal with it.

David Rutley: I welcome the statement today. Looking beyond the current situation, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what plans the Government have to speak to countries like s Denmark and the Netherlands about how we can share experience in managing flood risks in the future?

Eric Pickles: Dutch companies, not surprisingly, are already in contact with us about the levels, and as the Dutch built them, they are probably in the best position to help us out.

Therese Coffey: I welcome the proposed changes to the Bellwin scheme, which will help Suffolk councils help Suffolk families and businesses. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to think sending the Royal Engineers to repair the railway in Dawlish, although that is not in my constituency? They did the job in Cumbria in a very short time. I think they could get Cornwall and Devon back on their feet quickly.

Eric Pickles: The Prime Minister has made it clear—I hope my hon. Friend will like this—that there is no restriction on the use of the armed services. Should local authorities require them, they will be there, but I emphasise that we do not know the level of the damage. Right now what we are trying to do is protect the track.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today about the Government response to the floods. However, my constituent Linda Barker has contacted me to ask how people like her, in areas unaffected by flooding, can help to support people who have been affected. Charities like the British Red Cross provide support to flood victims, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he is ensuring that people like Linda can support charities that work with flood victims?

Eric Pickles: Churches and voluntary organisations are doing a terrific job. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has had discussions with voluntary organisations. If my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) would care to discuss this with him afterwards, we might be able to help his constituent.

Glyn Davies: There has been much debate about how we can move flood water efficiently to the sea to save areas that are being flooded, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is every bit as important to retain flood water where the rainwater falls? There is a brilliant scheme in Plynlimon in my constituency in Wales, which has a positive impact on the whole of the Severn valley in England.

Eric Pickles: I agree with my hon. Friend. I said earlier that no single solution should be applied right across the board. I have experience of a similar scheme that has been very effective, although such a scheme would obviously not work in the Somerset levels.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Scotland’s Place in the UK

[Relevant documents: second report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, The Referendum on Separation for Scotland-The Need for Truth, HC 828]

Lindsay Hoyle: There will be an opening speech of 10 minutes. I warn everybody that there will be a five-minute limit on speeches thereafter, apart from the wind-ups.

William Bain: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered Scotland’s place in the UK.
	Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and other hon. Members who serve on the Backbench Business Committee for granting the House the opportunity to debate a proposition that will dominate much of this referendum year across our islands: Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. As we shall no doubt hear in the debate, this is a question of identity and economics. Above all, it is a battle of visions for the future of Scotland—one with huge implications for the future of other multinational states across the world.
	I reject the binary and false choice that some seek to make in this debate that people have to choose between Scottishness or Britishness and cast their vote accordingly on 18 September. I am a proud Scot, but see no contradiction between that patriotism and my strong sense of Britishness—or, indeed, my additional citizenship of the European Union. In an increasingly interconnected world characterised by ever-evolving apps and networks, the concept of mutually exclusive identities does not reflect the real lived experience of billions of people.
	Before I was elected to this House, I worked in universities in both Glasgow and London. I saw the challenges they faced in common. I never looked on the young people from east London, whom I taught in this great city, as strangers or foreigners; in fact, they were often fascinated by the study of devolution in my constitutional law classes. I knew them as people with whom I share an identity, and want to continue sharing a state with, for the benefit of all of us.

Wayne David: In this debate on the future of the Union, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Union is not merely between Scotland and England, but Wales and Northern Ireland too?

William Bain: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am pleased that we have Members from all parts of the United Kingdom in the Chamber for this debate.
	As a student, I campaigned for a devolved Scottish Parliament and marched to The Mound in Edinburgh; never with a flag in my hand, but with hope in my heart that powers should be exercised at the most appropriate level for the purpose of improving the lot of ordinary people in Scotland. I did so because I believed, and still believe, that decision making in many public services and on many economic policies are best exercised at a more localised level. However, I strongly believe in
	retaining the advantages of a collective macro-economic framework, of a collective social security system and of cross-UK business, borders and diplomatic policies used to promote greater justice at home and across the world.
	We ought to recognise the great force for good the Scottish Parliament has been in Scottish politics, whether on housing policy, land reform or other policy areas, and never has it been greater than this week, when it passed a Bill, in its own way, to secure equality before the law for LGBT people living in Scotland. This was an expression of Scotland’s values being complementary to, not divergent from, those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
	The devolution settlement has evolved before, it will change again in 2015 and 2016, with the introduction of significant new financial responsibilities over borrowing and income tax, and it can accommodate further reforms in the future. In the 1997 referendum, the late John Smith was proved correct—strong devolution within the United Kingdom was the settled will of the Scottish people—and I believe we will express that loudly and clearly again in this upcoming referendum.

Jonathan Edwards: As I understand the position of the Labour party in Scotland, it favours the full devolution of income tax powers to the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday, we heard a speech from the 1970s from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), in the Welsh Grand Committee, in which he said that fiscal devolution was tantamount to destroying the fabric of the British state. Will the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) explain to the House and the people of Scotland what exactly is Labour’s position on fiscal devolution?

Lindsay Hoyle: It might help Mr Edwards to know that he was on the list to speak, and I do not want to keep banging people down the list because they intervene. I do not want to stop debate—I do not mind interventions—but please ensure they are brief and not continual.

William Bain: I want to keep the focus on positivity in this debate, and I would simply point out to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) that the one party that was inconsistent in its approach to tax powers being devolved in the Scotland Act 2012 was the party he sits alongside on those Benches.
	As a result of the Edinburgh agreement, Scotland faces a choice between two futures in the 18 September referendum: an optimistic path that builds on the strength of the devolution settlement and our common institutions, such as the Bank of England, to make our economy more productive and where ordinary people share more in the benefits of growth; and a pessimistic path implying that erecting borders is more important than bringing down barriers in terms of inequality and lack of opportunity across these islands.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says he wants to make a positive case. In a debate about significant constitutional change, to take such a tone is a good thing, but if he is making a positive case and if the Labour party knows what further powers it wants to
	give to the Scottish Parliament, will he say whether it is true that some of his colleagues are going to boycott his own party conference?

William Bain: That is an odd intervention, because I am looking forward to my party conference in Perth—I have already booked my rail ticket—and I will enjoy campaigning in the city of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when I am there.
	No silver bullet comes from statehood and no instant answer to declining living standards will come from redrawing lines on a map. It will take politicians at every level of governance, together with civic society and engaged citizens across these islands, to work together so that ordinary people share more fairly in the wealth they produce, to reform our banking system, to work towards a more universal child care system and to reverse the crises of long-term youth unemployment, low business investment and weak productivity before they cause long-term damage to the fabric of our country. We must reshape lives, not reorder our geography.
	I am optimistic about Scotland’s future. It is the home of groundbreaking initiatives on science and research, supporting high-level manufacturing and enhancing the huge international reputation of our universities and colleges. Scotland’s economy can have a great future as a beacon for investment in renewable energy, if we combine our natural resources with the strength of UK investment networks and markets. I see a Scotland where, through UK Trade & Investment, we increase our share of global trade, creating thousands of jobs in manufacturing, including in our largest manufacturing sector, our burgeoning food and drink export industries.
	We can remove the barriers to work for tens of thousands of women in Scotland by creating a more universal child care system, which is one of the biggest drivers of increased prosperity in working households with children; we can support sectors of the economy that create high-skilled, higher-paying jobs; and we can deliver a revolution in workplace skills to make progression within a job and a career a reality for millions. Our ambition must be to create a society that has better health and educational outcomes and that uses the strengths of every level of government to eliminate the in-work and out-of-work poverty in Scotland described so starkly this week by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
	Such a vision can be delivered only on foundations that are secure, not built on sand. If Scotland is to prosper, rather than merely survive, we need sterling as our strong and guaranteed currency, backed by a monetary, fiscal, banking and political union and anchored by the Bank of England as our central bank. If Scotland is to thrive rather than languish, we need a single market in goods, capital, labour and products across the United Kingdom, with no internal barriers to ambition or trade. If Scotland is to walk tall in the world and tackle global poverty, hunger and disease, as well as climate change, we need the strongest representation through the United Kingdom in a range of international bodies, stretching from the G8, to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Commonwealth, the UN Security Council, the Council of Europe and—yes—the European Union.
	The only way we can bolster these foundations is by rejecting separation and endorsing devolution and full partnership within the United Kingdom. I look forward
	to hearing the contributions in this debate, but I reflect on the fact that the nature of politics has to change in Scotland too. The spirit of unity in 1999 has sadly turned into an air of rancour and bitterness. If, as I hope, we achieve a strong and decisive vote in favour of devolution and against separation, people in Scotland will need to move forward not as divided tribes of devolutionists and nationalists consumed by enmity, but filled with a shared political destiny.
	I hope we can reach out the hand of friendship to those on the other side of the debate and begin the conversation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) mentioned in order to move from the low divisiveness of these times to the uplands of a Scotland that can thrive within a strong United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing the rest of this debate, but my wish is that by the end of this year we can proceed in one direction, as one people, one Scotland, as part of one United Kingdom whose best days are ahead of us.

Andrew Tyrie: Unusually, I agree with just about every word I have just heard from the Opposition Benches.
	In the short time available, I want to say a few words about the consequences of independence for currency arrangements in the rest of the UK and Scotland, but I ought first to make it clear that the Scots are not without options: they could create their own currency, whether pegged or free floating, they could create a currency board or they could join the euro. All these options are available. But the frontrunner in some quarters seems to be the creation of a formal single currency with the rest of the UK. In the current economic and political circumstances, this should not be attempted, and in the four minutes now available to me, I will try to explain why.
	The primary reason is that a British monetary union would need something dramatically tougher than the eurozone rules—so tough that, on both sides of the border, if it was fully explained, I am confident our respective electorates would not want it. And they would be right. It would amount to a common fiscal policy between independent countries, which would be a massive undertaking to design and sustain.

John Thurso: Was my hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the Treasury output graphs that we saw at the end of Governor Carney’s speech? They showed that banking in Scotland would represent 12.7 times the economy—five points greater than the seven times for Iceland—and that it would be unsustainable without the currency union provisions my hon. Friend is describing.

Andrew Tyrie: I think it crucial for us to understand that a banking union could well trigger the migration of banks to London, where they would be able to benefit from the “lender of last resort” facilities provided by the Bank of England.
	Let me say something about what a common fiscal policy would entail. It would mean, for instance, pre-approval of budget proposals, which would be accompanied by intensive and very intrusive oversight of budgetary
	outcomes. It would require rigorous powers to insist on overshoots being corrected quickly and reversed, backed up by credible sanctions for non-compliance.
	In order to carry credibility, such powers would probably need to be directly applicable in law on both sides of the border. What that means in practice is that the Bank of England and the Treasury would have the power to direct a large part of Scottish economic and financial policy. For example, the Scots would probably be required to seek their approval before they could borrow in order to build schools and hospitals.
	Is it realistic to imagine that all those in Scotland who had just voted for independence would readily accept such intensive supervision and direction from the rest of the United Kingdom? I doubt it.

Stewart Hosie: The Chair of the Treasury Committee is making an interesting assessment, but what he is saying is not necessarily the case. If the stability arrangements were made at the aggregate deficit or debt level, and if both countries were required to adhere to them, the line-by-line scrutiny of spending plans he describes would not be necessary, would it?

Andrew Tyrie: Countries in the eurozone were required to abide by the stability and growth pact, and look where that took us. We need something much more robust than that to make a currency union work, and I am pretty confident that it would not be any more acceptable in Scotland than it will be in England.
	Let me now say something about the effects of a currency union on the rest of the United Kingdom. It would, after all, have to be a two-way street. Is it realistic to expect the rest of the UK—much the bigger partner, both economically and in terms of population—to accept Scottish oversight of fiscal policy here? Is it realistic to expect the rest of the UK to risk the need for what most durable currency unions have eventually required, namely fiscal transfers? Is it realistic to expect the rest of the UK to sign up to a currency union that could carry the risk that all those rules, albeit tough rules, would fail, and that their failure would trigger the need for bail-outs? I do not think that such arrangements would be acceptable to the electorate. What is more, I doubt that a majority could be mustered for them in the House of Commons.
	Of course, the leaders of both countries might try to get a currency union past their respective Parliaments without fully explaining the consequences, but I am on my feet now because I want to try to prevent that from happening. There would be shades of the eurozone in such an attempt, but it would be a fool’s errand.
	A currency union created in such circumstances would, sooner or later, be tested by the markets. Either the rules would be tough enough to bite, or, if they were not tight enough, there might be a bail-out. Alternatively, we might experience both the pain and the bail-out, as happened in the eurozone: we might experience the pain of the bail-out south of the border, and the pain caused by the biting of the rules north of the border.
	Not enough attention has been paid to the political consequences of botching these currency arrangements. Whatever the economics of trying to create a currency
	union, I think that it is bad politics for these islands at this point. The eurozone has provided a reminder not just of the economic difficulties of creating durable currency unions, but of the political damage and fall-out that come with flawed arrangements. We need, above all, to put what Lord Lang, in the other place, described as “the politics of grievance” behind us as we make our efforts to renew the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK. But it seems to me that a currency union would risk the opposite. As its full implications became clear, it would create the conditions for lasting resentment on both sides of the border, and it is just such resentment that we must do everything possible to avoid in the search for a stable economic and political relationship between those on the two sides of the border.
	I urge the Governments on both sides of the border to explain how all the difficulties that I have outlined could be addressed, well before the Scottish referendum. Not to do so would be to deceive our respective electorates into believing that there is some third way, some relatively painless option, enabling the Scots to imagine that they could be fully in control of their own affairs and that the rest of the UK could avoid large contingent obligations. If, as I have concluded, those difficulties cannot be adequately addressed in the current circumstances, the two Governments should rule out a currency union now.

Anas Sarwar: The next few months will be big ones for Scotland. The decision that Scots will make on 18 September will shape our country, our families, and generations to come. I am proud of the fact that, during the campaign, I will argue loudly for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. I am proud of the part that Scots have played in the success that is the United Kingdom, and proud of the role that the Labour movement has played in that success. I am proud of our achievements over the past 100 years, when we worked together to meet the common challenges that people faced in towns and villages throughout the UK.
	When, 70 years ago, people were faced with inadequate health care and opposition from vested interests, it was the Labour movement that thought of, fought for, and created a system of health care for everyone—based on need, not nationality— right across the UK. We did that together. When there was no safety net for people who were out of work, no support for families and children, it was the Labour movement that thought of, fought for, and created the UK-wide welfare state. We did that together. When some workers were paid just £1 or £2 an hour, it was the Labour party that thought of, fought for, and delivered the national minimum wage for everyone, right across the UK. Such has been the impact of the living wage that it is now seen as the expectation, not the exception.
	No one in the Labour movement said that we could not do any of that because we were part of the UK. We all did it because we were part of one family in the UK, not because we were competing with each other within the UK. The NHS, the welfare state and the national minimum wage are examples of the real transformative effect that working together across the UK can have.
	Those are big examples, because we are a big movement with big ideas: ideas that are bigger than independence will ever be. We have never been a movement that turned its back on others. We have never said “You are on your own.” We have never said “You fight your own fights.” We have always said that we will pool and share our resources for the benefit of all.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of his colleagues’ thinking about the extent to which they would agree to allow devo-max, including a greater degree of fiscal autonomy that would fall short of complete independence?

Anas Sarwar: That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman, like everyone else, will have to wait for our full devolution commission report, which will be published during our conference in March.
	When the Governor of the Bank of England was busy sinking the SNP’s plans for a currency union last week, he was keen to point out that a key ingredient of a successful union was meeting the need to
	“mutualise risks and pool fiscal resources.”
	That is exactly what we have now: we have a redistributive union, a wealth-sharing union, in which a contribution from all to the common pot enables those most in need to benefit from the common weal.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I certainly agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s comments so far. I was alarmed when I read a tweet allegedly from a leading member of the Yes campaign saying:
	“Wouldn’t it be great if @Tesco @Sainsburys @Morrisons @Asda just left Scotland after Yes vote”.
	What kind of message does that send to the people who are trying to create productivity and jobs in the braw brave new Scotland?

Anas Sarwar: Given the continuous pursuit of positivity, I must point out that that quote was not from a leading member of the twittersphere but from the communications director of the Yes Scotland campaign. That demonstrates that the positivity exists only on one side of the debate in Scotland.
	Corporation tax is a good example of what I have been talking about, because the tax raised not only from Scottish companies but from the biggest businesses across the UK is redistributed across the UK to where it is most needed. Similarly, we all remember when the Royal Bank of Scotland was in trouble and needed bailing out, and taxpayers from across the UK stepped in to help, with no questions asked and no IOUs demanded. We see today the tragic circumstances across parts of England resulting from flood damage. Again, it is taxpayers from across the UK who will pool and share resources to help out, and again with no questions asked or IOUs demanded. There is a recognition that in times of trouble people from across the UK stand shoulder to shoulder. Now, with energy bills going up and the value of wages falling, and with household budgets being squeezed and household incomes not keeping pace with the rate of inflation, the answer is not to turn our back on the rest of the UK but rather to come together as we have always done to tackle our biggest challenges head on.
	It is also right that Scots should be in the room when the big decisions that affect them are being taken. When interest rate decisions affecting the cost of Scottish mortgages and car loans are being taken, it is right that Scottish voices should be heard. When the regulation of financial and banking markets—which affects every one of us across the UK—is being agreed, it is also right that Scottish voices should be heard. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that; there are some whose position is to diminish or mute the voice of Scots and to take us outside the room when decisions are being taken. Do not take my word for that: the SNP’s own Jim Sillars described the proposed currency union this week as “stupidity on stilts”. I am clear that Scots speak louder and do more as part of the UK. We have a can-do attitude, but it is unfortunately not shared by some others.

Ann McKechin: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that a Government who have the power to introduce further provisions for child care should decide that they will deal with that only if and when they get the right result in the referendum?

Anas Sarwar: That demonstrates that we have a Government in Scotland who are determined to win women’s votes but not to change women’s lives. That is why we need a Labour Government in this place and in Holyrood.
	Some people argue that we can deliver social and economic change only when we have constitutional change, but the truth is very different. The fact is that the big challenges we face in reducing poverty and inequality cannot be put on pause until after September 2014. It is not surprising that the SNP is using the extent of constitutional change as its measure of success. Labour is, and always has been, about so much more. The Labour movement has never argued for the status quo; indeed, it is something we have always fought against. For us, the real measure of success is the extent of economic and social change and the positive impact it has on people’s lives. That is why, for those on either side of this debate, this is a change referendum. We will argue for a strong voice across the UK, and for a strong Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Michael Moore: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allocating the time for this important debate. I also congratulate those who have contributed to it so far; their speeches have been very thoughtful. I hope that we will be able to maintain that tenor throughout the afternoon, although that might be wishful thinking. Everyone who has spoken so far has acknowledged the fact that we have a big moment coming up in a few months’ time. The election in 2011 was transformational, and we are finally focusing on the big choice for Scotland between going it alone and staying part of the most successful family of nations in the world.
	It is hardly a surprise that I want Scotland to stay part of the United Kingdom. That desire is based not only on my upbringing and experience in the borders and elsewhere in Scotland but particularly on my experience as Secretary of State for Scotland. It was a great privilege to hold that post, not least because of the people I
	worked with, including the great team of civil servants, special advisers and others who did an immense amount, even though it was a small team. They helped to produce the Scotland Act 2012, which brought about the biggest transfer of financial powers from this place to Edinburgh since the Act of Union, and supported me in the work that we did on the Edinburgh agreement. It was not just those two moments that were important, however. As Secretary of State, I also had the chance to get out and about and see the fantastic country that we all call home and that we are proud to be from and to represent.
	I am thinking of the young woman in Glasgow who had been given an opportunity through the jobcentre and Skills Development Scotland to get some training and to work up a business plan, which she wanted to develop into something big. She had the vision, and she wanted to go for it. I am also thinking of the woman business leader in Fife who had taken her small family agricultural business and, with her family, developed it into a business that operated across the United Kingdom and Europe. Her vision was an expansive and positive one.
	I am thinking, too, of the oil and gas sector. For Members representing Aberdeen, and for those on both sides of the House representing the north-east of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), that sector is a precious jewel. We argue about the politics involved all the time, but I doubt that we truly appreciate all that it does, and all the highly skilled people working in Aberdeen and the north-east, including those from all our constituencies. They have a great future, but they will also face a big challenge in a few decades’ time, and that is something that we should all be thinking about now. It was a great privilege for me to learn much more about that sector, and to see the opportunities that exist now and that will exist in the future, when the oil and gas are finished.
	Travelling all those miles around Scotland over three and a half years reinforced my sense of Scotland’s place in the UK. We have fantastic economic opportunities. That is not just about being part of the huge single market in the UK, or about having a great platform from which to promote our goods and services throughout the world through UK Trade and Investment and other channels; it is also about having the right attitude and approach to connecting with the international business sector.

Malcolm Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among some businesses that have taken advantage of UK representation around the world that, if Scotland became independent, the UK Foreign Office network would effectively be competing with a Scottish network, rather than acting as an ally working towards achieving economic success?

Michael Moore: That would be a terribly sad situation. Last March, I was part of an energy showcase in Rio de Janeiro, at which Scottish Development International was working in partnership with UKTI and the consulate there to promote Scottish business and Scottish skills on the international stage. We were supporting each other, and we do not want to lose that scale and that ability.
	This is not just about opportunity, however. It is also about our resilience. We have already heard references to the banking collapse of a few years ago. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, is in his place today, and I am sure that he will say more about this. The fact that we in Scotland had the whole of the UK standing behind us at the time was massively important and gave us the ability to work through those difficult times, the legacy of which is still with us today.

Katy Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence given by the Business Secretary yesterday to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, in which he said that he thought it likely that RBS would relocate its headquarters to London if Scotland voted for independence?

Michael Moore: My right hon. Friend’s evidence has been well reported, and most people who look sensibly at the options will understand that that is a real possibility—perhaps more: perhaps a probability. The reality is that we have to think through all these issues. We have to think about what we have at the moment that is very special and that might have to be given up if we were to vote for independence.
	Apart from the economic issues, which I am sure we will debate at length, we also need to think about our place in the world. Because of our proud record of reaching out to the world, Scots are delighted that we have half of the Department for International Development’s work force and policy makers in Scotland, a few miles from Glasgow in East Kilbride, the constituency of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). That is a fantastic place to visit.
	There we are—Scotland—punching above our weight internationally, not only through that policy work, but because we are part of a country that is now reaching the United Nations target on international development. We also have greater security, as part of NATO, by being at the top table in the UN Security Council and through so much else. As others have said, this is because we are part of this great family of nations. We may be temporarily divided about the rugby this weekend—we might be hiding under the duvet, depending on what we expect the outcome to be—but we will set aside our differences shortly after.
	In my part of the world, in the borders, we understand more than most about the family of nations that we have; the 500-year echo of Flodden that we think about at this moment reminds us of what went before and why we must not let those divisions ever return. I do not want to see that, and I do not believe that most people in Scotland do either. Of course we face challenges, on health, inequality, infrastructure, and transitioning and transforming our economy, but I simply believe that if we use the powers we already have and the new powers that are coming, if we sensibly discuss further powers that might be added to them, on tax, borrowing and employment support, and if we work together across parties, across Scotland and with the rest of the UK, we have a very positive future. We should channel our energies into that, not seek division or separation. I am proud to be Scottish, I am proud to be British and I hope that, together, we can keep this family of nations together.

Jimmy Hood: My first comment will come as no surprise to any of my colleagues in here, including the Secretary of State and the two former Secretaries of State: it is good to have a debate on Scotland. There is a long list of speakers and people are already complaining about the length of time they are going to be given to participate in the debate, yet both Front-Bench teams deny themselves eight Grand Committees a year to discuss Scotland. Today, the Leader of the House was boasting about being at a Welsh Grand Committee yesterday where he was discussing devolution. I just make that point as I get on to making my contribution—I have got it off my chest, so I can move on.
	I wish to make a few points in the four minutes or so remaining to me. First, I wish to discuss membership of the European Union. I was the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation from 1992 to 1998, and of its successor, the European Scrutiny Committee, from 1998 to 2006. For 14 years, I was the Chairman of the Select Committee dealing with European legislation and, in particular during that term of office, enlargement. Along with my Committee colleagues, I scrutinised the applications of Finland, Sweden and Austria, and then the big bang of the accession of the three Baltic states and the seven central European states. I also began the process of dealing with the Romanian and Bulgarian accession—that was six years ago and they have only just joined the European Union fully. So although I have never claimed to be an expert on anything, I do know a little about European legislation.
	A lie was told to Andrew Neil in a television interview: that the First Minister from the Scottish Government had legal opinion to back up their having automatic membership of the European Union. That was proved to be a lie, and it is distasteful that this important debate is wasted by that sort of atmosphere. This place is about debating and democracy, and has been for centuries. Surely this is a debate on the merits of what the proposition is, and not a debate based on the quality of propaganda. Propaganda is not about political debate; it is about selling a pup. There is a pup for sale in my country and in my constituency, and I am strongly against it.
	I know that the Scottish National party is lying about Europe, as it is about pensions and welfare, and about keeping the pound. Even if the SNP was right and there was a grand, great thing at the end of the rainbow for the SNP and its debate for independence, I would still be against it. If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union. That is part of my history. I was proud to be born into a mining family in a mining community, where it was not about self-betterment, and where judgments are not made about people on the basis of which side of the road or of the bed they were born on.

Katy Clark: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comment that his views are not based on whether individual Scots would be better or worse off. Does he agree that many Labour Members have a bigger vision which is about the whole of the country and redistribution within it, and that we need to see real distribution to all the poorer areas in this country?

Jimmy Hood: Well, of course. Wherever we see poverty, we have empathy with those who are suffering it. As we have heard said many times, poverty is just as important to us if it is by the River Thames or the River Clyde. That has always been the case. [Interruption.] I hear what is being muttered behind me and I will try not to be put off—I am becoming a bit used to it.
	Thirty years ago, on 5 March, I was proud to be involved in the miner’s strike, fighting for my community, for my campaign and for my values and mining community values. We were fighting against a lying Westminster Government then, and I am fighting against a lying Government now in the Scottish Parliament. In 30 years’ time, when somebody asks what I was doing in 2014 and which side I was on, my grandchildren will be able to say, “He was on the side of Scotland, and he opposed devolution and—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is up, unfortunately, much as I wanted to hear more. I call Rory Stewart.

Rory Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	One thousand nine hundred years ago, Rome divided Britain with a wall. Britain is an island whose natural boundaries are the sea, and this wall split families and split tribes. Ever since that moment we have been debating this issue. These two fundamental principles for Britain are what we are debating today. They are in competition: are we divided nation against nation, or are we unified by culture and language? There is only one answer to that question, and it cannot be simply economics. If a relationship is going wrong—if a marriage is going wrong—the answer cannot simply be to say, ‘You can’t afford to break up because you are going to lose the house.” The answer has to be only one thing, which is, “I love you.” We in this House are struggling to express the nature of our love for Scotland. We are not very good, as politicians, at talking about emotions. We have become very bad at it, but we need to learn to do it, because otherwise a party that is trying to reduce, to shrink, to vanish will win.
	What do we mean when we say, “I, as a Member of Parliament for an English constituency, love Scotland”? It would be personal to every single one of us. It could be that we love intellectual seriousness. I was paddling along in a canoe with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) a few months ago, and I would really miss him from that canoe. People in the United Kingdom would miss Scotland for different personal reasons—Scotland’s egalitarianism, its intellectual seriousness, its sense of realism and its sense of humour. I would be very ashamed and embarrassed to be part of a country that did not have Scottish Members of Parliament here.

Frank Roy: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in foreign affairs. Can he tell the House how much stronger Scotland would be as an independent country in relation to the world?

Rory Stewart: There are two answers to that question. First, Scotland must of course embrace the potential of being part of the United Kingdom in foreign affairs.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman himself represents what is good about our political settlement. He sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee, so there is a Scottish voice on that Committee raising Scottish issues again and again, forcing us to focus on Scottish issues when we think about foreign policy, and that is something that we would deeply miss.
	There is a great appeal to Scottish nationalism. We all feel it in our gut, and it is because the world is bewildering. People are angry. Some 85% of people in this country feel that politics is broken and 87% feel that society is broken. Our voters feel that Westminster is out of touch and that their lives have never been so complicated. Those are real feelings that we have to acknowledge and accept. But the answer to those problems is not to get smaller. When we face complexity and things that are bewildering in our everyday lives—when we feel angry or disappointed—the answer is not to get smaller, shut the door and pretend that we can shut those things out. The answer is to expand.
	I have three suggestions on the lessons that we need to learn from Scottish nationalism. The first lesson is that it is not that Westminster is too far away: it is also that Edinburgh is too far away. The answer to the problems of our communities is to represent the issues of Argyll separately to the issues of Perthshire and the issues of the Borders. They are not the same issues. One of the great weaknesses in England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland is the lack of real localism. Whether talking to someone in Muthill struggling with planning or someone in Kelso worried about economic development in their area, we need to learn from Mitterrand in France in 1983—hyper-localism and mayors at a local level—and not try to fool the Scottish people by pretending that transferring power from Westminster to Holyrood will solve those human problems.
	The second thing that we need to do—and this is true for the north of England as much as for Scotland—is not to pretend that London and the south of England do not exist. We need to accept that they exist, that they are a challenge, that they have huge potential, and that we need to make them work for us, not pretend that they are not there.
	The third thing is cultural links. It is a tragedy that the educational policy of the Scottish National party has made it more difficult for English students to study in Scottish universities and for Scottish students to study in English universities. We must reinforce the cultural links.
	Finally, what we need is the human expression. On 19 July this year, I hope that 100,000 people will gather along that old Roman wall—English, Welsh, Irish and Scots—holding hands and linking arms across the border. Because in the end what matters is not the wall that divides us but the human ties that bind us in the name of love.

Sandra Osborne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who is a fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope his wish to get all those people to the border is fulfilled, and I would certainly be pleased to be there on the day.
	Next September, we Scots will take one of the most important decisions in the history of Scotland and of the UK as a whole—whether to stay in the UK or walk away to become a separate state. It is extremely important—we owe it to all the people of the UK, especially Scots—that this debate is conducted in a measured, respectful and positive manner, and is informed by proper analysis rather than the name calling that has been all too common until now. This has been an affront to the people of Scotland and does nothing for the case of those involved in that puerile bullying and infantile behaviour.
	On whichever side of the argument we fall, or even if we have yet to decide, we should go forward on the basis of what we believe is best for Scotland, not necessarily just for the generation represented in the Chamber today, but for our children and grandchildren and those who will follow them. That does not mean that the debate should not be robust, however. The fact is that Scottish people in general do not subscribe to the idea of “knowing your place”, and I would argue that Scots have punched well above their weight as part of the UK and internationally in many different fields, and that continues today.
	In that regard, I congratulate Sir Tom Hunter not only on the success he has achieved as a New Cumnock lad, but on what he gives back. He certainly has not forgotten where he came from, as local people will tell you, but he is also to be congratulated on his initiative to provide a forum for people to ask questions and get the answers they need to help them make this important decision about the future of their country.
	We need answers to the difficult questions. The more that is asked about the consequences of separation, the more we get talk of
	“shared responsibility with the rest of the UK”,
	the best example recently being the SNP’s plan for a sterling union. Leaving aside the fact that it takes two to tango, it is yet another proposal that is unravelling. Once it was to be the Scots pound, then the euro, now sterling, but maybe it should be the Scots pound. Even Jim Sillars, erstwhile deputy leader of the SNP, has dismissed a currency union as “stupidity on stilts”.

Gerald Howarth: I support everything that the hon. Lady has said. Does she recall that James VI of Scotland, who became James I of the United Kingdom, called for a new currency, to be called the unite?

Sandra Osborne: I am a proud member of Unite the Union, but the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish history is obviously much better than mine.
	As I was saying, Mr Sillars is well known in Ayrshire for changing his mind—sometimes he does not seem to know which party he is in or whether he is for devolution, for separation or for staying with the UK.
	The First Minister seems to be leading a campaign with the slogan “Don't frighten the horses” and suggesting that nothing is really going to change. When we do get any policy promises, such as the child care initiative outlined in the White Paper, we find that nationalists are proposing something that could be delivered right now under the powers of devolution. Instead, in a
	cynical attempt to win women’s votes, child care is offered as a bribe to vote yes. Well, Scottish women are not so easily fooled.
	We in Ayrshire have a special regard for Keir Hardie as one of the great Scots of the Labour movement. Keir Hardie believed in devolution, but in the context of promoting social justice across the whole of the UK. He started the Scottish Labour party and the British Labour Party, and he helped build trade unionism in Scotland and in Britain. He was an internationalist in outlook, and an MP for a Welsh and then an English constituency. Look at the Scots who followed in his footsteps, like John Wheatley, Tom Johnston and Willie Ross—another of Ayrshire’s own. They all made a tremendous contribution to Scotland but did so from within the UK Cabinet. That is not to mention Scottish influence in the last Labour Government and indeed the present shadow Cabinet.
	We have no desire to “know our place” in any deferential sense, or even to be content to be a junior partner—Scots are not a subjugated people. We have been free to choose independence since universal suffrage almost 100 years ago. Instead, Scots have positively chosen in election after election to remain a partner in the United Kingdom, and I believe that will be their choice in the referendum vote in September.

Robert Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on recognising the importance of addressing this issue.
	I want to take a positive approach to Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. It has played a dynamic role and it is one that has evolved. With 300 years of common history, we have still got our distinctive legal system, our distinctive education system, our national identity, and we have recreated our own Parliament to deal with those issues that directly affect us in our lives in Scotland, so we do, as the slogan says, get the best of both worlds: a say in those decisions that affect us that are taken at the UK level, and a say in those decisions that affect us directly in Scotland in the Scottish Parliament.
	In putting the positive case for voting no, I return to what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said, and point out that the best and simplest way of keeping the pound sterling is to remain part of the UK. That is most easily achieved by voting no in the referendum. It gives us a say in how our currency is managed and it keeps us part of a borderless fully internal market, with a more diversified economy. The banking crisis reminded us that Scotland’s heavy dependency on the financial services sector—a great achievement by many people working in that sector—presents a challenge when it goes wrong. It was the rest of the UK’s economy and diversification that helped to sustain us through that crisis.
	The oil and gas industry is also a great success story in Scotland, as the former Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) mentioned. It is a great technical achievement and there are a lot of people with
	a lot of skills and the work they do has a lot of export potential. It is also a very unstable source of revenue to the economy, however, because it depends on the global oil price. When the price is high, the economy does well. When the price is low, being part of a larger economy, when other parts of the economy can benefit from the low oil price, gives the ability to transfer resources and sustain the economy. The UK’s diversified economy also allows us to come up with tax incentives to stimulate exploration, forgoing cash flow now for long-term benefits.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman talks about being part of a larger economy. Norway is not part of a larger economy. Is he suggesting it is not successful with its oil and gas and its general economy?

Robert Smith: Norway is far more dominated by the oil and gas sector and has a successful economy, but if there is a downturn in the oil price Scotland does not have the economic resources and reserves to take that hit, yet we have the benefit of being part of a wider, dynamic, more diversified UK economy—and we will be, too, when the oil eventually runs out.
	As has been mentioned, we also have access to a global network of embassies and trade missions that work positively to benefit Scotland and promote Scottish trade and investment in Scotland. We will continue to enjoy that positive benefit if we vote no in the referendum.
	As has been highlighted in recent speeches, the business community does not have a vote in the referendum. The referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide Scotland’s future. It is one person, one vote and it is up to the people of Scotland to make that decision, but they are entitled to know the concerns of business. We want to hear the voices of business. Yes they cannot tell people how to vote, and yes they cannot dictate the result of the referendum, but if they remain silent and then quietly implement what they plan to do in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, the people of Scotland will have voted for a future without knowing the consequences and being able to take that on board. It is therefore extremely important that the business voices have the courage to speak up and inform the debate so people can make a clear and decisive choice in the referendum.

Gerald Howarth: Having talked to some businessmen in Scotland, I have discovered there is a feeling of nervousness on their part. They feel that if they were to put their heads above the parapet and express a view in favour of the Union, they might get picked on and discriminated against by the SNP.

Robert Smith: There is an undercurrent of a bullying culture in respect of some of the voices that come forward in this debate, but I notice that people of the level of Bob Dudley, who is high up the pecking order, are less easily bullied. That is an important point, however, and I hope the fact that these voices are coming forward will encourage others to speak up. Businesses do not, of course, want to fall out with customers and their work force, but they can put their concerns in a way that says, in effect, “It’s up to you how you vote, but we have this concern and the consequence of voting that way is that there will be the following implications for our business, and you need to take that into account.”
	With a yes vote, there is no turning back. It is not an experiment. The message that must go out to the people of Scotland is that if they vote yes it is for life, so they need to be very confident and certain about their decision. A no vote is a positive vote for the benefits of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, with the best of both worlds. We are better together and I urge people to vote no in the referendum.

Pete Wishart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), and may I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on ensuring we have this important, but all too short, debate today? May I also say to hon. Members that I will not be taking any interventions? Members of the other parties will get 90% of the time so it is only fair to the people watching this debate that they get the opportunity to hear from the other side.

David Mundell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that next Tuesday the SNP is in control of Opposition business in this House and that it has not tabled a motion to discuss independence for Scotland?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That matter is on the record and certainly does not need my confirmation.

Pete Wishart: What a chance; what an opportunity: on 18 September this year we can make the choice to become a self-governing nation once again—to walk tall in the world with national self-respect and dignity like all other normal independent nations do, being responsible for ourselves and blaming no one else for our setbacks. The most exciting thing for me is that our independence will release and ignite a tsunami of energy, creativity and imagination as we get down to the business of building and creating our new independent nation—a new nation according to our Scottish priorities, built on our sense of community, always securing the Government we vote for, pursuing the agenda we want.
	We will run an independent Scotland better than the Westminster Tories because of one key and very important fact: we care more about Scotland than the Westminster Tories do—of course we do, and that is why we will run it better. Never again will we have a Tory Government without our democratic consent. We want no more picking on our vulnerable; no more obscenities such as the bedroom tax; no more of Labour’s illegal wars and no more Tory or Labour weapons of mass destruction defiling our beautiful country—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I have a bit of calm? In fairness, it has been a good-hearted debate so far, and I know that no one wants to spoil the harmony of the House.

Pete Wishart: We will ease pretty seamlessly into a new independent status. The day after we secure a new nation, it will be pretty much like the day before, but
	something remarkable will have happened. All of a sudden, the country will be ours to shape and to determine. If things do not work out, we can change them. We can change them because we have the power of independence. For the first time in 300 years, our nation will belong to us, and nothing could be more exciting and transformative.
	It is all down to this choice. If we vote no, we are accepting that this is as good as it gets. This is what we have to settle for. It signals a contentment with Westminster rule and Westminster politicians’ ability to deliver for Scotland.

Michael Weir: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Pete Wishart: Of course I will.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Michael Weir: My hon. Friend will no doubt remember, as I do, campaigning in the first referendum on devolution in ’79. We were promised, “Vote no and you will get more powers”, and he will remember what happened. We got absolutely nothing.

Pete Wishart: I do indeed remember that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that up because it happened in my constituency. In Perthshire, we have long memories when it comes to these issues.
	If we vote no, we will be saying that we approve of Westminster government and whatever future the rest of the UK decides for us. Well, I do not like where the UK is going.

Anas Sarwar: rose—

Pete Wishart: I am not giving way. I do not like where the UK is going at all. I do not have much time, so I will mention just two examples. The first was last week’s appalling Immigration Bill, which would charge visitors to our country fees for health care and turn those who rent houses in the private-rented sector into immigration officers. It is a nasty, pernicious and rotten Bill that is designed to counter the threat of the UK Independence party. We do not do UKIP in Scotland; we barely do Tory. We have a national treasure on the Front Benches; our one and only Tory Member. None the less, we will get that Bill, because this Government took it through on a Labour abstention. I object to my country being dragged into this monstrous race to the bottom between this Government and UKIP about who can be the hardest on those who might want to come and live in my country. Scotland is better than that, yet the Bill was passed. It was passed on the same day as the House of Lords debated our country. I do not know whether you saw that, Mr Deputy Speaker. That bloated, unelected Chamber stuffed full of party placement cronies and donors had the audacity to tell our nation what it should do. Then it also had the effrontery to defile the memory of our war dead and insult the many brave veterans who have served this country with distinction just because they happened to support independence for our nation. One thing we will get with independence is the ability to wipe away that ermine-wearing unelected Chamber from the face of Scottish public life, and our nation will be much better for that. Scotland is so much better than that.
	We know that if we gain control of our own resources and secure all the necessary powers, there is nothing stopping us becoming an economic powerhouse, and that is what we look forward to.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman is putting an emotional case for independence, but he is not taking on board the wise words of the Governor of the Bank of England who talked about the illusion of independence if an independent Scotland keeps the pound sterling. The voice of Scotland will be taken away from the decisions that will affect its very core monetary policy.

Pete Wishart: I have had enough of that “You cannae do that stuff”, so I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have a decision to take. It is a choice between negativity and positivity—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to hear the hon. Gentleman. It is not fair that you are enjoying yourselves. I want to hear the speech.

Pete Wishart: We have listened to their speeches with as much respect as possible, but we are shouted down. It seems impossible for Members to listen to the other side of the debate. I do not know why this place thinks that that is attractive. It is a choice between negativity and positivity. No European country has done what we are about to do. As an exercise in democracy, this is huge. This is Scotland’s great choice, because it is a choice between two very different and distinct futures. We can decide that this is as good as it gets, or we can decide to do something much better—to take control of ourselves and to put the nation in the hands of the Scottish people. If we get this chance, this once-in-a-generation chance, we will vote for the positive, because positive beats negative. What a prize there will be when we vote yes in overwhelming numbers. When we go to the polls in September, we will vote “yes”. What a prize there will be—a country of our own.

Iain Stewart: I am honoured to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing the discussion today. Like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I want to make principally an emotional argument. My birthday is on 18 September, and I want to celebrate it—hopefully for many years to come—with a glass or two of a good single malt and a celebration of my country. I do not want it to be a permanent reminder of the day that my country was lost. My nationality is British and my country is the United Kingdom. I want to speak up for my constituents and everyone on both sides of the border who feel the same.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Iain Stewart: I have a great affection for the hon. Gentleman so I will give way.

Angus MacNeil: What sort of birthday present does the hon. Gentleman think the people of Scotland would like to give a Tory MP on 18 September?

Iain Stewart: There are some very good distilleries, and I have a taste for the water of life, so I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a list. Perhaps he will buy me one on the day.
	We have more than 300 years of a forged special identity. That does not diminish the importance, the history or the culture of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Initially, it is like a marriage, in which two separate families come together. Over the centuries, those two families forge something unique together, and a shared identity comes about. Something special is created whether it is through triumph, disaster, adversity or opportunity. We dismantle that at our peril.
	My second point is what I see as a fundamental flaw at the heart of the Scottish National party’s position. It is not a proposal I agree with, but there is a logical coherence to the argument that Scotland, as a separate nation, should become independent and a master of its own destiny with the ability to shape its own future, as the hon. Gentleman has set out. Quite apart from the huge emotional costs that would have to be paid, there are many uncertainties and other costs that would flow. None the less, I understand the emotional appeal and the logic that goes behind it. What is not logical is to go through all that pain, cost and uncertainty only to argue that nothing would change for this new separate, independent sovereign country. The hon. Gentleman admitted it himself. He said that the day after would be the same. Why go through all that, particularly on the point of currency union, which has been the subject of much discussion? I do not often agree with Jim Sillars, a former Member of this House, former deputy leader of the SNP and one-time ally of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, but his article in the Sunday Times last weekend was spot on. He said that
	“a currency per se, like sterling, is a badge of sovereignty printed by a sovereign government”
	and that will be the badge of the United Kingdom.
	He went on to argue that
	“you don’t pool sovereignty, you transfer it and lose it.”
	That is what would happen in a separate Scotland according to the SNP’s argument.
	Should independence happen, Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom would survive. I do not subscribe to the theory that we would be reduced to an economic wasteland, but I believe we would all be poorer. Time does not permit me to go into all the arguments about the practicalities, but the strength of the Union is greater than the sum of its parts. If we split up, we are all diminished.

Bob Stewart: May I point out that the influence of Scotland is enormous? There are three Stewarts on the Government Benches today and there is a Douglas behind me. Scotland has huge influence in the United Kingdom and should remain in the United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think there may be a question there.

Iain Stewart: My fellow clansman puts the point eloquently. Scotland punches above her weight in the United Kingdom. England punches above her weight
	by being part of the United Kingdom. Be it in international affairs, defence or economic clout, we are stronger together.
	Devolution is a dynamic process and I think that was always the intention when the Scotland Act 1998 was passed. In 2012 we passed a further Scotland Act, which contains a substantial transfer of powers, principally fiscal powers, from this place to Holyrood. That transfer has huge implications, particularly for businesses in Scotland as they adjust to the new fiscal arrangements. I support that, as it makes Holyrood responsible for more of the money it spends. It finds as much of a welcome in my constituency in England as I know it does in Scotland. Surely the sensible thing to do is let that major change happen and bed down before we see whether there are further practical changes that can be introduced so that we have the optimal arrangement between Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than gambling on the one-way ticket to uncertainty that a yes vote on 18 September would represent.
	Let me conclude by returning to my principal point. Whatever the economic, strategic or practical arguments about Scotland’s remaining part of the United Kingdom, for me the principal point is emotional. This is my country. I will not rest until we see a no vote on 18 September. I do not want to swap my country for dual citizenship or whatever other arrangements come about. I am British, I want to stay British and I will fight with every fibre of my body to keep us British.

Michael McCann: It is a pleasure to follow such a thoughtful and emotional contribution from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart).
	I want to talk about the reasons why Scotland is stronger when we pool and share our resources as a United Kingdom, but let me start by outlining what I believe to be the three main elements of the debate on the streets of Scotland. First, it is about the things that we know will change. Secondly, it is about the things that would not change. Thirdly, it is about the issues that would require negotiation. It has become apparent that there is a nationalist plan to move as many items as possible from the negotiation box into the box for things that would not change: the pound, membership of the European Union and membership of NATO, to name just three. It is pretty clear that the motivation for that move is to create an atmosphere in which people in Scotland feel that separation is not a risk. I hope that the yes campaign will change its strategy and tactics because a victory based on a deceit would be no victory at all.
	We also know that many people have stepped in to make their views known, most notably and recently the Governor of the Bank of England. I hope that people will continue to do so without fear and will make positive contributions to the argument on both sides, but I must place on record my concern that the apparatus of the state is being abused by those in power. The White Paper, which I have in my hand—Members will be delighted to know that it is not my speech—was
	billed as the document that would answer all the questions on independence, but it does not. Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, must explain why taxpayers’ money was used to create and issue that document. The Secretary of State, the Cabinet Office and the head of the civil service should explain why they have maintained their silence while the impartiality of the civil service has been compromised.
	Let me give just two examples. On page 37, the White Paper states:
	“The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government in Edinburgh are responsible for a range of ‘devolved’ matters”
	before going on to list them. It then states:
	“The Westminster Government—currently a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties—and the Westminster Parliament have ‘reserved’ responsibilities”
	before going on to name those rights. What can we take from those two statements? There is no mention of the United Kingdom Parliament and it refers to a Westminster Parliament and Westminster Government that do not exist. It is factually incorrect, so why did civil servants allow the document to be released and published at the taxpayers’ expense?
	It does not end there. Each page is filled with similar partisan comments that belie the Scottish Government’s position that the document was designed to illuminate. One example really makes my blood boil, and it was mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Page 13 is entitled “Gains from independence” and states:
	“Abolition of the ‘bedroom tax’ which will save 82,500 households in Scotland—including 63,500 households with a disabled adult and 15,500 households with children—an average of £50 per month”.
	What could be more despicable and reprehensible than preying on the fears and concerns of the most vulnerable people in Scotland? That statement and the words of SNP Ministers on the issue were designed to create the impression that the Scottish Parliament could not remove the tax without independence. This week, by their own actions, they have confirmed that as a deceit.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, not just dissecting the White Paper as what it is, a work of fiction, but saying that the Scottish Government’s current powers can be used in such a way. Does he think that the people of Scotland will be asking serious questions of the SNP Government about why they have waited more than 12 months to abolish the bedroom tax in Scotland?

Michael McCann: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are many more examples and each page of the document is filled with similar deceits. It is not fair on the people of Scotland, who should be relying on informative documents from the Scottish Government to inform the decision they will have to take on 18 September.
	Scotland is part of the most successful political and economic union that the world has ever seen, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members.

Brian H Donohoe: Is it not also the case that the UK has not been invaded by a foreign body for more than 750 years? Surely that in itself demonstrates just how successful the Union has been.

Michael McCann: I will defer to my hon. Friend on the amount of time, given that hewas probably there for most of it. He is absolutely correct.
	If people vote no in the referendum, they can wake up on 19 September knowing that they will keep the pound, that the United Kingdom will remain a member of NATO and that we will retain our EU membership. They will know that brave men and women, a lot of them Scots, are looking after our national security and much more. They will know that those matters will not be subject to negotiation.
	There is one more crucial point. The United Kingdom is successful because we pool and share resources. Money earned in more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom can be shared with areas that have fewer resources and, as history tells us, areas of wealth are not always fixed. The size, depth and sheer diversity of the United Kingdom means that we will always have sources of wealth for redistribution, even when certain natural resources cease to exist. Our ability to pool and share our resources, coupled with the certainty of currency and international agreements to which we are party, insulates us as a United Kingdom in ways with which smaller nations cannot possibly compete.
	There is a human element too. I was a trade union official, elected and full time for 26 years of my career, and I have worked with colleagues and friends across the United Kingdom. Walking down a street in London, Darlington, Cardiff or Belfast is, apart from the accent, no different from walking down the streets of Glasgow, because people have the same problems. We share much more than currency and membership of international agreements. We share a history, and we share the same hopes and aspirations for future generations. Last night, there was an addition to the McCann family. My niece Maria had an 8 lb 4 oz baby boy in Wishaw general hospital. Members will be delighted to know that mother and child are doing well. I hope that that child gets the same chance to grow up in the United Kingdom as I have had.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the powerful contribution made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I congratulate him on the addition to his family.
	Much of the debate has been on the forthcoming referendum and has centred on the economic issues, which are a bit clinical. Bob Dudley’s warning that BP would question future investment in a foreign country called Scotland will surely not be the last such intervention. The Business Secretary’s statement that the Royal Bank of Scotland would move its headquarters to the place where it is regulated will doubtless be followed by others. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned of the consequences of secession. It would not be in Alex Salmond’s gift to decide whether an independent Scotland could keep the pound, a case that was strongly and brilliantly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), so I will not repeat it.
	Defence is another critical area. The defence industry in Scotland employs 12,600 people, many in the Clyde shipyards and in Rosyth, where the largest warships
	ever built in this kingdom, the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, are being assembled. Under Article 346 of the European treaty, the British Government are not required to put out to tender across the EU any contract for defence equipment. In a separate Scotland, all that would be lost.

Jim McGovern: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that since the second world war, the MOD has never placed a contract for any defence ship anywhere other than in the UK. If Scotland is no longer part of the UK, obviously it will not get those contracts.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and it is terribly important that the people of Scotland understand the significance of defence in this debate. I am grateful to him for his contribution.
	There is also the strategic risk to the rest of the United Kingdom if the defence of our northern borders were to be entrusted to a foreign country, not to mention the ludicrous situation regarding the UK’s critical nuclear deterrent, which would have to be removed from Scotland at massive expense and huge danger to the whole of the current United Kingdom.
	But these are all matters of the head; like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) I want to address matters of the heart. My father was born in Lancashire, but my mother was a Douglas, the daughter of a Scottish border farmer, himself a Border Reiver. I am a product of the Union and I am intensely proud of it. I do care about Scotland, even if I do not have a Scottish accent. My closest relatives have farmed that magnificent rolling border country for centuries, and are doing so today as we debate this issue. My uncles, together with MOD representatives from the Northumberland side, defined the border between England and Scotland along the Cheviot in the 1950s. My uncle played flanker for Hawick, two of my cousins played for Jedforest, and my second cousin, the late W. I. D. Elliot, was hailed by The Daily Telegraph as the greatest post-war Scottish rugby player, with 29 caps for Scotland. This is no foreign country; this is where a large part of my soul resides. When I cross the border back into Scotland, I think of the words of Sir Walter Scott:
	“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
	Who never to himself hath said,
	This is my own, my native land!”
	I trace my roots to nowhere else but the soil of this United Kingdom and the Scottish Borders is where half my soul resides.
	Let us be in no doubt, as the noble Baroness Liddell said during an excellent debate led by my noble Friend, Lord Lang of Monkton, in another place last week—sadly, not properly covered, of course, by our newspapers—the SNP has filed for divorce. It wants to end 300 years of a mighty and successful partnership, a partnership to which Scotland has contributed a huge amount: the market economist Adam Smith; Alexander Graham Bell who gave us the telephone; John Logie Baird, inventor of the television; Alexander Fleming who discovered penicillin, James Wilson from Hawick who founded the Standard Chartered bank for which I worked; Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding who famously commanded RAF Fighter Command during the Battle
	of Britain—all Scots who enriched this kingdom—and today, Sir Alex Ferguson, possibly the greatest football manager of all time, J.K. Rowling, Sir Chris Hoy, Andy Murray and the rest.
	That one man’s personal vanity should drive the campaign to put asunder that which has endured for centuries amounts to constitutional vandalism. We have worked together, played together and fought for freedom together. My uncles fought in the second world war to retain the freedoms of these islands. If this divorce were to happen, Scotland’s influence would be virtually zero.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a division in this wonderful Union would have an unsettling and unnerving effect and get the tails up of Irish republicans in my part of the kingdom and drive another wedge into the hearts and souls of people in Ulster?

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that analogy and to point to the unforeseen consequences to which the Scottish National party does not wish to draw attention. I entirely support him.
	In this divorce court, of course the judges will be those of whatever nationality reside in Scotland. The 800,000 Scots living in England have been disfranchised and can only watch helplessly as others determine the fate of the land of their birth: people such as Captain Eric “Winkle” Brown, Royal Navy, who has flown more aircraft types than anyone else on this planet, who has done more ship deck landings than anyone else—2,500—and who interrogated Hermann Goering in German after the war. Brought up in the borders in Melrose, Eric, who helped to save us from Nazi domination, will have no vote because he does not reside in Scotland. Nor will those Scots living and working overseas, contributing to the prosperity of this our kingdom. Are we then all to have separate passports? Will I and my family on the other side of the border have to have separate passports? Are we to be divided in this way? This is monstrous.
	So, to those in Scotland, whether born there or of other nationality, to whom has been granted the exclusive privilege of deciding the destiny of this, our United Kingdom, I say, “Please vote to retain the unity of the kingdom in which Scotland plays such a proud and distinguished part.” It would be a tragedy if families across the kingdom were to be divided in the way the separatists are demanding.

Graeme Morrice: I add my own congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing this important debate on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
	One way or another, 2014 will be the year that Scots will remember. In seven months’ time the Scottish people will vote to decide either to continue 300 years of partnership and shared prosperity, or to go it alone as a separate state. Unlike some, I did not get into politics to obsess over the constitution. I would rather be talking about how to build a better Scotland, a better Britain and a better world. I am just as appalled by poverty in Birmingham, Liverpool and West Ham, as I am in
	Broxburn, Livingston and West Calder in my own constituency. I would rather the Scottish Government were focused on their day job of improving the lives of ordinary Scots than on abusing public resources to promote an SNP agenda.
	By pooling and sharing our resources, Scots have contributed to one of the most successful and prosperous political unions the world has ever seen. But whereas there is little doubt that Scotland could be an independent country, the question the Scottish people will have to consider is whether Scotland will be better off by going it alone. My view is that Scotland would not, and there is a range of positive reasons why I believe that we are all better together. Scotland is linked intrinsically to the rest of United Kingdom, socially, politically and economically.

Nigel Dodds: It is important to point out that Scotland is linked not only to England, but to Wales and Northern Ireland, because there are strong bonds across all the countries. Those of us who are from those areas must send out a strong message to our Scottish fellow citizens that we cherish the fact that they are part of the United Kingdom and want them to remain as such. It is important that, without interfering in the democratic vote, we send out that positive message.

Graeme Morrice: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and fully understand that there are major cultural links between the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I have many friends and relatives from Northern Ireland.
	The single market within the UK affords significant economic, trade and employment opportunities to people on both sides of the border, and our membership of the European Union, through the United Kingdom, provides a vast marketplace for Scottish exporters. Together, we have a place at the top table of the European Council of Ministers, we are one of the G8 forum of the world’s largest economies and we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, all of which allows us to wield unprecedented influence on the European and global stages. As a member of NATO, we have collectively benefited since the war from international security and defence co-operation on a grand scale.
	When it comes to the economy, Scotland has a very important relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland benefits from access to a market comprising tens of millions of people within a single jurisdiction. Scots are employed by firms based in the rest of the UK, and people in the rest of the UK benefit from employment opportunities with Scottish-based companies. Indeed, Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK are worth double its exports to the rest of the world.

Iain McKenzie: Does my hon. Friend agree that upon independence the border would become a barrier to business with the rest of the UK?

Graeme Morrice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. On day one of independence, were Scots to vote for it, the rest of the United Kingdom would remain within the European Union but Scotland would not, so it clearly would not benefit from the EU single market, to the great detriment of Scottish business and Scotland overall.
	Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is great to see a Scot in the Chair this afternoon. [Interruption.] And a woman, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) reminds me.
	In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when the UK, led by a Scot, injected an amount of capital into the banks well in excess of the Scottish Government’s total budget. The pooling of resources also allows for distribution on the basis of social need across the welfare state. Were Scotland outwith the UK, that would place a major question mark over its ability to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to meet state and public sector pension commitments.
	Of course, Scotland has its own devolved Parliament, with significantly more powers to come as a result of the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2012. It can therefore be argued that Scotland has the best of both worlds: local decision making, but under the financial umbrella of the UK Barnett formula, giving Scots more funding per capita than anywhere else in the UK.

Lindsay Roy: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for making a very positive case. Will he remind the House why the Barnett formula was introduced and why the additional funding per capita goes to Scots in what is a relatively small country?

Graeme Morrice: Scotland benefits disproportionately from the Barnett formula to the tune of £1,400 per capita because of rurality, super sparsity and Scotland’s particular needs, so my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
	Since 2011 we have been told that the answer to every question the Scottish people have ever asked about independence would be in the Scottish Government’s White Paper. Given Alex Salmond’s recent statements, I was half expecting next week’s lottery numbers to appear in its pages, too. The Scottish people were promised the New Testament but instead had to settle for the SNP’s next election manifesto. The truth is that Alex Salmond simply cannot guarantee many of the White Paper’s promises and has completely failed to answer many of the legitimate questions that have been asked of the yes campaign. The Scottish Government could deliver more with the powers they already have, but they choose partisan dividing lines, rather than improving the lives of the Scottish people.
	On 18 September the Scottish people will have a choice: either to support the continuation of Scotland within the UK, and all the advantages and benefits that involves, with a further strengthening of devolution; or to take a leap into the unknown, never to return.

John Stevenson: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, and to speak not just as a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but as the Member for Carlisle— the city at the very centre of the UK and situated on the English-Scottish border—and, of course, as a Scot.
	Scotland is one part of the United Kingdom, and that United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part, has been hugely successful over the past 300 years. Indeed,
	I suggest that not only do we live in a Union that has a number of different parts, but the whole is much greater than the sum of those parts. The United Kingdom, as one nation, is far superior and far more successful than two or more separate entities would be. That is why it is in the interests of all of us to remain part of a United Kingdom.
	We live in a nation that has been, and is, hugely successful—economically, socially and politically. We live in a wealthy, prosperous and stable country, a country that respects the individual and upholds the rule of law. We live in a country with a comprehensive education system, a health service that is free at the point of use and a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world. Scotland is a part of that. Indeed, Scotland has made a very valuable and substantial contribution to the success of the United Kingdom. It has helped create the prosperity we all enjoy, and it continues to do so.
	However, in less than eight months’ time this most successful of unions could start to fracture and come apart. It is my view—a view shared by many in this House—that a move to independence would not be in the interests of Scotland or the people of Scotland. In fact, I believe that it would also be detrimental to the remaining parts of the UK and, if I may be more parochial, that it would be against the best interests of the people of my constituency and the surrounding area, both north and south of the border.
	On a recent programme a commentator suggested that the debate on independence was one between the accountants and the poets. That is the “hearts and minds” argument. I do not subscribe to the argument that it is one or the other—that it is a debate between those concerned only about the financial and economic implications and those who believe in a more romantic attraction to the idea of independence. Scotland’s continuing place within the United Kingdom can be supported by both emotional arguments and sentiment as well as by hard economic facts.
	The Union has been to the economic benefit of the Scottish people. The real danger for Scotland is that independence will lead to significant economic stagnation and decline. Without the Union, Scotland might not be as attractive a place for some sectors and industries to invest or do business in. Talent and business might leave. We must remember that the 1707 Union was as much about economics as it was about politics. Businesses do not like uncertainty. There is clear certainty and continuity if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. Businesses and investors will know exactly where they stand if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. They know and understand the regulatory regime, the laws and the relationships. In contrast, there will be massive uncertainty if Scotland decides to pursue an independent course.
	I appreciate that other hon. Members have touched, and will touch, on many of the business and economic issues, such as the currency—the euro, sterling or a Scottish dollar—membership of the EU, immigration, tax and regulation, particularly of the financial sector.
	As for the emotional debate, I see nothing wrong with people being proud of their roots; proud to say that they are Scottish as well as British, in exactly the same way that someone can call themselves Welsh, Irish, a Yorkshire man, a Brummie or much else. They are still
	British, but they can and should be proud of both. Indeed, the Olympic games demonstrate the unifying attachment that most people have to the United Kingdom.
	We must not forget that the debate on Scotland’s place in the UK is of great importance to places such as Carlisle. There is much work, leisure, social, shopping and family relationships that cross the border. There is therefore a danger that we will end up with unnecessary complications and difficulties that could hinder such activity, particularly business. There could be different currencies, different health and safety or environmental regulations and alternative immigration policies. Indeed, daylight hours could be different. In an extreme case, we could end up with someone who travels across the border in either direction needing to carry ID, change their money, alter their watch, follow different regulations and pay different taxes, and wondering whether it was all worth while.
	In conclusion, speaking as the MP for Carlisle, a Scot and a UK citizen, I believe that Scotland’s place in the UK is very much like Carlisle’s—it should be at its centre.

Angus MacNeil: Se urram mhor a tha ann dhomh an diugh cothrom bruidhinn air Alba a bhi neo-eisimeileachd.
	I start in Gaelic, the oldest language of these islands of Britain and Ireland, to say that it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate about the day Scotland will be independent. It is tremendous that this House has taken this opportunity to debate the vital topic of how Scotland can join the world as an independent nation—how it can be a full part of the United Nations and a full and proper member of the Commonwealth, not kept apart and separate as a region of another state, and certainly not knowing its place in the Union. If ever a debate had a title with the hangover of imperialism, it is this one. Scotland’s place, like that of New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Ireland, is in the world. No country in the developed world has voted against their independence, and I am sure that Scotland will not be the first. It is an odd insult to Scotland that here in Westminster every other nation is seen as independent but Scotland is insulted by the word “separate” or “separatism”. We will be independent like the others, too.
	The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—the darling leader of the no campaign—often says that independence is a one-way street. [Interruption.] Yes, he darkly warns. In fairness, not much he says has any brightness and joy. But he is describing a situation and not a fact. The fact is that independence is probably irreversible. The empirical reality, from observation, is that none who gains independence chooses to give it up. As it works personally when we stop being children and start making decisions for ourselves, so it works for countries. The best people to make decisions for a country are the people who live and work there, and this is true for Scotland.

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. If, heaven forfend, there is a yes vote on 18 September, will he commit his party, at some subsequent date, to give a further referendum to allow Scotland back into the United Kingdom?

Angus MacNeil: No, I will not, but others are free to campaign for that if they so choose and to do so if they win a mandate.
	To my many English friends who worry that in the absence of Scotland they would have permanent Tory Government in the rump UK, the facts are that Scotland has changed the Government of the UK for only six months since 1945, whereas the Scottish nation, under the tawdry political Union of 1707, has got a Government it has not voted for two thirds of the time since 1945.

Michael Weir: Does my hon. Friend remember all the claims made for devolution by those in the Tory party who said that it would lead to Labour being in power in Scotland for ever, and how a short a period that turned out to be?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend makes a great point. Labour is out of power in Scotland, and, like the Liberals and Tories, is heading ever further downwards.
	Scotland will not affect the Government of Westminster 98% of the time. Regardless of that, our first job as representatives of the people in Scotland is to make the lives of those who live in Scotland better. Concern about who is government in London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin or Dublin should not be the guiding light of any Scots democrat: it should be the conditions of people in the housing estates of in Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Sighthill and The Raploch and bettering our cities.

Brian H Donohoe: rose—

Angus MacNeil: My time is limited.
	Our concern should be improving lives in Lochaber, better quality jobs in Sutherland, more young people staying in Lewis, and a flourishing Skye. No more neglect! Our concern should not be the red Tories or the blue Tory Government in London, but the needs of the people of Scotland and the democratic will of the people in Scotland, regardless of where in the world they are from. Our immigrants are very welcome in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has often said. Scotland’s destiny is in those people’s hands, and only a yes vote keeps that destiny in the hands of the people in Scotland.
	We are at a crossroads in Scotland. Do we have the courage to deliver a better future to succeeding generations? The Norwegians did. Dirt poor when they made the decision in 1906, without the manifest advantages of Scotland today, they now have an oil fund for future generations so that when the oil runs out, the money will not. The finances of Scotland are good, despite having a tax system that is not designed to optimise or maximise Scotland’s potential. But in each and every of the last 32 years, estimates show that Scotland has contributed more tax per person than the UK as a whole. The figures for Scotland are equivalent to £10,700 tax per head annually, while for the UK as a whole they are only £9,000. From 2007-08, public spending has been a lower share of Scotland’s GDP than in the UK as a whole. Taking tax and spending together, over the past five years public finances in Scotland have been better than in the UK as a whole by £12.6 billion.

Margaret Curran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: Time does not allow.
	Only this week, the Financial Times backs this with the immortal line—[Interruption.] Members should listen rather than barrack. They should have the courtesy to listen, and they should listen to this: “An independent Scotland could”—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House must listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Angus MacNeil: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that Labour Members feel suitably chastised. They should listen to this:
	“An independent Scotland could…expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK.”
	Even without oil and gas, Scotland’s GDP is higher than Italy’s and equal to that of France. Why we should say, “Even without oil and gas”, I do not know—we do not mention that when we talk about Norway or Saudi Arabia. Financially and economically, Scotland can do it. In fact, it has been said:
	“It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.”
	Would any Government Member wish to tell me who said that? It was the Prime Minister. Who could disagree with those words, or indeed the words of Ruth Davidson? I see the blank looks on the Tory Benches; Members can Google her later to find out who she is. She said:
	“The question is not whether Scotland can survive as a separate state. Of course it could.”
	Notice that she uses the word “separate”. My real favourite, knowing that the economic case has been won by the yes side, is this:
	“Our argument has never been that Scotland couldn’t be independent”.
	That was the Tory’s Darling in Scotland, the Labour MP for Edinburgh South West.
	Our message is one of hope. Parents in the UK pay the highest child care costs in Europe. Scottish parents spend an average of 27% of household income on child care, whereas the OECD average is 12%. When we are independent and get the taxes and the economy properly organised, we in Scotland will dramatically improve child care. But we need the necessary powers, and we cannot have financial leakage of fiscal benefits to those in Westminster who choose not to fund this. It happens in Sweden and it will happen in Scotland. Independence must happen. We cannot have families looking at £9,000 tuition fees for every child going to university, costing every family £36,000 per child, with a family of three paying a staggering £108,000. That is the cost of voting no. Voting no to independence risks our budget, 100,000 more children in poverty, Scotland going out of the EU against our will, no guarantee of more powers for the Parliament, and no guarantee of getting the Government we vote for. Therefore Scotland must be independent.
	We know we can keep the pound sterling. The Daily Telegraph blew the gaff when it said that the
	“new nation will be able to keep the pound”,
	or else “renounce…the debt”. We are not subsidy junkies. We can keep the pound while the rest of the world looks at us: the independence generation. They envy us in Canada, New Zealand and Australia, because we will deliver independence.

John Thurso: What a considerable pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). Rarely can a speech with such a terrible lack of facts have graced this hallowed Chamber. What a load of perfectly emotional clap-trap!

Angus MacNeil: rose—

John Thurso: Do sit down, dear boy.
	When I originally put my name down to speak in this debate, I intended to stick to the dismal science, as Governor Carney called it in his address in Edinburgh, and to confine myself to the facts as they have been exposed in the Treasury Committee, but alas, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), was the first to be called and did a far better job than I could.
	When I listened to the extraordinarily good and trenchant speech by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), I was struck by the fact that we should not run away from the emotion involved in this decision. I would therefore like first to touch a little on the “heart” issues before I return to the “facts” issues.
	Not long ago, I had the honour of addressing a group of Girl Guides in Thurso who had asked me to come and explain the consequences of independence or the potential for Scotland of independence. I felt it was very important to try to give as balanced a view as I could and to explain both sides of the argument before giving my conclusion as to why I preferred to stay in the Union. Like the hon. Gentleman, I started by giving a bit of history. I did not quite go back to the Romans, but I did point out that it was not until, I think, 1468 —it was certainly around that part of the 15th century—that the northern isles came into the Scotland we now know. The administrative construct of modern Scotland, therefore, existed for less time than the Union.
	It is important to put that in context, because we are so often given a wonderful diet whereby somehow the great Gaeldom goes back for millennia to some distant point in history and are told that if we do not give Scotland its independence we will be denying it its destiny. The plain fact is that that is just a load of emotional tosh. We should set it to one side and understand the true history.
	If we look back a little further to the battle of Largs, we will see that, up to that point, Caithness and its people owed allegiance, through the Earl of Orkney—one of my ancestors—to the Norsk side and the King of Norway. Were Scotland to find itself in the impossible position of being independent, I think I would join my good friends from the northern isles in seeking independence and going back to that earldom.
	We need to assess the risks as well as the benefits, and I hope the debate will be calm and rational. When I first joined the Treasury Committee, we looked at globalisation, and that is what we need to consider in order to understand what is happening in business. When we talk about what might happen to business, we have to consider where companies would be best regulated. The financial services industry in Scotland may well think that business would be better off regulated in a different jurisdiction. We have
	to think about companies that have treaties with other sovereign nations and may not continue to build things in Scotland if it becomes a separate country. We also have to think about whether people who wish to invest in the United Kingdom would go to Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. I would suggest that the simple, practical commercial decision for most of them would be to go elsewhere in the UK. The benefits cannot be marginal and nor can they be uncertain. If Scotland is to seek independence, the benefits must be substantial and proven, but that case has not yet been made.
	We are a brave heart nation. That is a great Scottish characteristic, but another one is the canny heid and this is a time for canny heids. Otherwise, my grandchildren will one day read the headline in one of the Scottish newspapers, “Will the last person leaving Scotland snuff out the candle?”

Gemma Doyle: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate. The first priority of any responsible Government is, of course, the security of their people and I want to say a few words about that.
	As part of the UK, Scots have a high level of security in a very dangerous world. Service personnel from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland work together in our armed forces to keep us safe at home and to tackle threats around the world. People like the security that the UK armed forces provide, and that is reflected in some of the findings of the recent Scottish social attitudes survey. If Scotland became independent, only 27% believe she should have her own army, navy and air force, while 67% believe we should still combine our armed forces with the rest of the UK. There are very few issues in the survey on which there is such overwhelming majority support for one option over another. Overwhelming support is also given to the idea of keeping the pound, whatever happens. The views of Scots on the issue of the nuclear deterrent are not as clear cut as they are on what should happen to our armed forces.
	As part of the UK, we are also a part of NATO. Our membership is vital and means that we work with other countries and benefit from full spectrum defence capabilities; that we are not out on our own; and that we have influence in the world. The SNP, having dragged its members to reverse their long-standing opposition to NATO membership, is still in a muddle on the issue. It says that it would want to join NATO only if it were given a guarantee that no nuclear submarines would pass through Scotland’s waters. However, the White Paper also states that it would operate a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Both positions cannot be true: either the SNP would apply to join NATO on the basis of its condition, or it would drop that condition and be happy to join and operate a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Therefore, if we become independent, the SNP’s position on our membership of NATO, and the basis on which it would like us to join, is entirely unclear. Of course, there is no guarantee that we would be allowed to join.
	The White Paper’s proposed defence budget is £2.5 billion a year, which is just 7% of the current total UK defence budget, every penny of which is spent on protecting
	Scottish families and others throughout the UK. The White Paper also includes an annual defence budget, but it does not mention any start-up costs or make a single procurement pledge.
	The UK’s defence structure cannot be easily disaggregated. Assets and troops based throughout the UK and the rest of the world are for the defence and security of everyone who lives here. Scotland receives the full benefits of the protection and security afforded to the rest of the UK.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I will not, I am afraid: I do not have much time.
	We pool our resources and work together to keep the people of the UK safe. Why would we want to give that up?
	A yellow thread of assumption runs through the White Paper. It is assumed that the remainder of the UK would cheerfully hand over whatever equipment an independent Scotland asked for, but what would an independent Scotland do if the remainder of the UK said, “I think we’ll keep our frigates and Typhoons”? Such equipment cannot be bought off the shelf, unless it is bought second hand. Perhaps that is the back-up plan.
	UK defence sustains thousands of jobs—both on the front line and in industry—in Scotland. As has been said, our shipyards get special preference when it comes to the awarding of contracts. The UK does not build complex warships in other countries. The GMB convenor in Scotstoun has described the SNP’s defence plans as a “complete fantasy” that would lead to “yard closures”. We pool our resources and we share the risk, and our defence is much better within the UK.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle).
	I speak in this debate both as a representative of my constituents in Stafford and as a proud citizen of the United Kingdom who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) so eloquently put it, cares deeply—indeed, loves—the kingdom and its constituent nations of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Together with the vast majority of my constituents—if a poll we took at a recent meeting and many conversations I have had with them are anything to go by—I wish Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
	Somehow there is a notion that people in the rest of the UK are not concerned about this decision, but that certainly does not accord with my experience. They do care: it is just that, quite rightly, they respect the right of the Scottish people to make up their own minds in this most important decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said that as the United Kingdom we stood united against fascism. We stood together for freedom and against tyranny during the cold war, and today we work together in tackling poverty and its causes around the world. It is not for nothing that the historic agreement about tackling poverty was signed in 2005 at Gleneagles in Scotland.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the nations that stood together under the allied banner during the second world war. It is important to remember that there were about 40 nations under that allied banner. I am particularly thinking of Norway, with the likes of Joachim Rønneberg, the Telemark hero, who made sure that Hitler did not get heavy water, and so prevented the flattening of this city. It was not just about one nation, but about the allied umbrella, and we should thank all the allies.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that, and he is absolutely right. We must remember all the nations that worked together, but we stood together as the United Kingdom, together with those nations. As a United Kingdom, we now have a very strong voice in the world through the G8 and our seats on the United Nations Security Council and the executive boards of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other organisations. That voice is vital both for our own interests but, even more importantly, for those of the citizens of the world.
	To be a little personal for a moment, my late father-in-law, Donald MacKay from Caithness, is just one important but personal example of the fundamental contribution made by Scots across the ages to our United Kingdom. He worked on radar for the Royal Navy in Haslemere during the war alongside my father—he, completely coincidentally, was there at the same time—and so many others from across the UK and, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said, from other nations, and therefore played his role in protecting our vital supply lifelines in the Atlantic and elsewhere. That is just another example of the intellectual seriousness, which was referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, that Scotland and Scots so often bring to our deliberations and work in the United Kingdom.
	As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) said, we are part of one family in the UK. Like any family, we have our squabbles, but we also stand up for each other in difficult times, shoulder to shoulder. I and, I believe, millions of others in England and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom care deeply about Scotland remaining in the UK. We have done so much together; let us continue to do so.

Gregg McClymont: The debate has been interesting so far, particularly the contributions of Scottish National party representatives. There has been sound, fury and passion about what they see as the great differences between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but the danger is that the sound, fury and passion will obscure the reality of the SNP’s proposals to change the Union.
	There is a rather peculiar notion at the heart of the nationalist case, which is that the economic and social union between the peoples of these islands should continue, but that the political Union should end. I will come back to examine what that peculiar notion means for Scotland, but the fact that the Scottish National party believes that economic and social union should continue—the White Paper is eloquent testimony to that desire—says something about how 300 years of
	partnership have brought the peoples of these islands closer together. That is not surprising: we have a shared language, notwithstanding the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and others, as well as family ties, a shared currency, free trade and common trade unions across the United Kingdom.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gregg McClymont: Perhaps after I have made some progress.
	We share tastes, preferences and of course a common popular culture, which is reinforced every Saturday night when the nation comes together to watch “Strictly Coming Dancing”, among other programmes. It is important to recognise that the White Paper is eloquent testimony to all that. The SNP wants to argue that all those matters can be retained in their current form, while the political Union disappears.
	Why do nationalists, whose philosophy is based on a belief in difference, come to that conclusion? The answer is that 300 years of shared history cannot be washed away or forgone. When Alex Salmond says, as he recently did to James Naughtie, that he has a Scottish identity but also a British one, it is testimony to that, whether Mr Salmond believes it or not. He knows that the people of Scotland believe that there are mutual ties that bind us across these islands.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gregg McClymont: The hon. Gentleman should allow me to develop my argument a little further.
	The SNP wants the political Union to end, but the social and economic union to continue. In those circumstances, the referendum will be about the best form of Government across these islands. That point was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). If economic and social union is to endure, as shown by the SNP’s White Paper, the question becomes one about how Scotland’s political interests are to be represented. The answer that Scots came up with 300, 400 or even 500 years ago was a Union. With John Mair of Haddington in the lead, they came up, in diabolically clever Scottish fashion, with a way to create a partnership between two countries of very unequal size. When we celebrate Robert the Bruce and William Wallace, we are saying that because Scotland entered the Union freely, we created a partnership and were not subordinated.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will not the Scottish Government’s proposals lead to an incredible democratic deficit? At the moment, if people in Scotland do not like what the UK Government do, they can have their say through their MPs. In the new arrangement proposed by the SNP, any negotiations would be intergovernmental, and it would be up not to the people of Scotland but to the Scottish Government to see what could be extracted from negotiations with the UK Government.

Gregg McClymont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a very Scottish way of putting it: the nationalists want us to have our cake and eat it, but that is very difficult. When Alex Salmond claims that by
	Scotland leaving the political union, England would lose a surly lodger and gain a good neighbour—that is important, because it illuminates the nationalists’ view of the world—my response is very straightforward: how can you be a lodger in your own house? We built this house together, and it is ours as much as anyone else’s. That house has of course been refurbished; it is not unchanging. The biggest constitutional change in this country in 300 years was the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar does not like to be faced with facts—his speech was a fact-free zone—but the fact is that this is our house as well as that of the other peoples of the United Kingdom.
	That is the basis on which this debate must proceed: how can one continue an economic and social union—the ties that bind us that are accepted even by the nationalists—without political representation in the place where such social and economic decisions are made? The debate about the currency, interest rates and continuing social ties must proceed on that basis.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before we go any further, I should point out to the House that there is a time limit on speeches in this debate, and not much time is left. There are more hon. Members who wish to speak than there is time available if they all take the full five minutes, plus an extra two and a half minutes for interventions; several hon. Members who have sat here all afternoon may not have an opportunity to speak. I ask those about to speak to keep within the five minutes, including interventions, out of courtesy to their colleagues. If they do so, everyone will have the opportunity to speak in this extremely important debate.

Bob Stewart: My father, Squadron Leader Jock Stewart, MC, was an RAF officer from Glasgow. My mother was from London and served in the Special Operations Executive. I am therefore half Scottish, half English and proudly British. As I come from a service family and have been a soldier myself, I intend to talk about just how valuable men and women from Scotland are to our armed forces.
	Scottish soldiers, sailors and airmen have always had a tremendous reputation as brave, ferocious warriors. Throughout history, proportionately more Scots than Englishmen, Welshmen or Irishmen have taken the Queen’s shilling to fight for the Crown. Since 1707, Scottish soldiers have played a crucial part in most battles fought by the British Army.
	The Gordon Highlanders had a leading part in the 1815 Waterloo campaign. At the battle of Quatre Bras on 16 June 1815, the Gordons halted the French advance in its tracks with the bayonet. Two days later, the regiment was in the midst of it again on the field of Waterloo. By then, casualties had reduced the gallant Gordons to about 250 men, and yet those incredible soldiers again charged the French frontally with the bayonet. As the Highlanders approached, the French broke into disarray and could only be caught by other Scotsmen on horses. The Scots Greys galloped past the
	Gordons to get at the French enemy. According to some accounts, Scottish infantrymen clung to the stirrups of the Scottish cavalry so that they could reach the enemy more easily. Is not that wonderful?

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Stewart: No, I have heard too much rubbish from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
	About 700,000 Scots served in the first world war, with about 150,000 losing their lives. The Highlanders earned their nicknames—the devils in skirts or the ladies from hell—at a battle in 1916, when the 51st Highland Division crossed a battlefield littered with the fallen to storm German positions with such force that thousands of prisoners were taken. At the end of the first world war, the 51st Highland Division was widely reckoned to be the best fighting force in France.
	The second world war enhanced the Scottish soldier’s incredible reputation. To date, 117 Victoria Crosses have been won by Scotsmen—soldiers, sailors and airmen.
	For me, there is nothing more stirring in a fight than the sound of bagpipes. As the British United Nations commander in Bosnia in 1992-93, I used my two pipers frequently. For instance, I asked them to play at line crossings because all of us needed courage to advance through no man’s land, especially as Staff Sergeant Steve Bristow had previously been wounded beside me by a sniper. The sound of bagpipes wafting through the air was an incredible encouragement to those of us who were frightened. My mainly English soldiers loved the skirling, thrilling and impossible to miss sound of the pipes. Once, there was intense fighting all around my base at Vitez. I asked my piper, Lance Corporal Cleary, to stand on the roof and make an impact. He did just that. The fighting and the shooting died down quite quickly as that tremendously emotive and martial sound echoed down the valley.
	My purpose this afternoon has been to remind the House just how important those in the British Army—indeed, those in all three services—consider the contribution that is made by their Scottish comrades, both men and women, to be.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Stewart: No.
	Scottish men and women form an integral part of our armed forces. I would grieve hugely if they were no longer a part of them. I sincerely hope that that will never happen.

Tom Clarke: In the short time available to me, I will focus on the referendum and the issue of independence.
	A recent YouGov poll showed that 29% of the people of Scotland were in favour of independence. That figure is typical of recent polls. Why does the SNP want a debate with David Cameron? Why is it targeting Labour voters with the nonsense that this debate is about Labour Scotland versus Tory England? Why is it undermining the prospect of a future United Kingdom Labour Government? That argument is not supported by the facts.
	Less than a quarter of Scottish people supported the SNP in the 2011 elections, but it has a majority in the Scottish Parliament. It has a mandate for a referendum, but not a mandate to be fixated on independence. In the 2010 general election, the Labour party received more votes than the SNP received in that election and in the 2011 election. With respect to Government Members, the reality is that the 41 Scottish Labour MPs in this House are more representative of the views of the Scottish people than the present Scottish Government.
	The majority of Scottish votes in the 2010 general election were cast for centre left parties. The same was true in England, Wales and even Northern Ireland. We therefore share the same values throughout the United Kingdom. We have the same values and, indeed, the same problems in Glasgow, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Aberdeen and Manchester. The reality is that, whatever the problems, the United Kingdom works.
	In all candour, I must say that what does not work is the coalition’s attitude to working people, which has been rejected by Scottish, Welsh and Irish people and most English people. The SNP disregards the fact that it has been rejected and uses it as an excuse to promote independence. The Scottish Government could act now on child care. As my colleagues have pointed out, Labour has pushed the Scottish Government hard for more than a year to act on the bedroom tax. For purely political reasons, they delayed their decision until this week. I do not for one second want the nats to regard the issue of welfare as an argument for separatism. Who can forget the fact that they took £34 million from disabled children and their families in Scotland and spent it on other things, mostly on political gimmicks? I certainly will not.
	The positive reality is that the economies of Scotland and England are interconnected. Mr Salmond called the pound
	“a millstone round Scotland’s neck”
	and said that he wanted to join the euro. Now, the nationalists wants to opt out and keep the pound. How opportunistic can they get? The rest of the UK is Scotland’s largest trading partner. If corporation tax is cut, it will become a competitor. Will Scotland be allowed to keep the pound and cut corporation tax?
	Mr Salmond is, by nature, a gambler. He is willing to take a risk with the Scottish economy and our people’s prosperity. However, there will be no way back if the people decide to have independence. I believe that the majority of our kinsfolk in the United Kingdom want Scotland to stay. The United Kingdom is not just a political system; it is our home. We are entitled to know what the future offers.
	Thankfully, the only people who can stop Scottish independence are the Scottish people themselves. I passionately urge them to reject the precarious and uncharted path of independence and separatism, which in so many ways would leave our country defenceless, exposed and alone.

Cathy Jamieson: It is a pleasure to follow some interesting speeches and in the brief time available I want to pick up on the three themes with which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) opened the debate: identity, economics and vision. I may not have much
	time to talk about the economics, but other hon. Members have made some good arguments about the currency, and mentioned the comments made by the Governor of the Bank of England, and others.
	On identity, like everyone else who has spoken today from across the House, I am proud of my cultural identity as a Scot. I would describe myself as Scottish, and in the days when we wrote in our school jotters our full name and address, it would always be “Shortlees, Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, Scotland, UK, Europe, the world, the universe.”—[Laughter.] I recognise that other hon. Members have done the same thing. That signified how I have always seen myself, and how the majority of Scots see themselves. We are passionately proud to be Scottish, but we also see ourselves as citizens of the world, and no doubt in future years, as citizens of that universe. That is why, when I speak to my constituents they raise real concerns about the idea of separating and splitting from the rest of the United Kingdom.
	In the past week I have been at a number of meetings and met people from across the United Kingdom, and interestingly, the first things we talked about were the Scottish connections. So far this week I have met people who are living and working in England but whose families come from Coatbridge, Cambuslang, and even further afield up north in Aberdeen and Inverness. Although they would now describe themselves as English because that is where their families are located, they are none the less proud of their Scottish heritage.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cathy Jamieson: I am terribly sorry but I do not have time to take interventions as other Members want to speak. My point is that we are able to be Scottish and citizens of the United Kingdom—and indeed Europe—at the same time, which is important.
	Let me pick on one point. I think that the Scottish people are entitled to have a fair, honest and courteous debate on this issue.

Pete Wishart: Let’s start here.

Cathy Jamieson: I hear the hon. Gentleman baying at me across the Benches, but my point is that many of my constituents may well vote yes and that will be their right, but the debate should take place in a courteous way. People should have the facts and information, and they should not have people shouting them down from 12 feet away. It is important that that information is trustworthy and that people have a sense that there is no political bias from the Government.
	Interestingly, I have been sent a copy of a press release issued by Transport Scotland—the transport agency in Scotland. It begins:
	“Powers of independence would better support transport.”
	When such things are issued by a Government agency in Scotland it gives cause for concern that the civil service and Government agencies have become overly politicised. That makes it difficult for others to feel able to speak out because they fear they will somehow be castigated or suffer the consequences of doing so, and that issue ought to be looked at.
	In this constant drive for additional powers, I served for 12 years in the Scottish Parliament and saw the changes that were made. I worked with UK Government Ministers when I was a Minister in the Scottish Executive,
	and looked at how we could transform and move on with powers. However, it is dangerous to think that simply adding more and more powers without any overall pattern is any more democratic or likely to deliver anything further than social justice. We should be proud to be Scots and part of the UK. This debate will continue but it must do so in a way that gives our constituents the opportunity to hear the arguments and make up their own minds.

Michael Connarty: I wear a badge in this House and in Scotland that has on it the saltire and the rose. It states: “Labour: A UK voice for Scotland.” That is the reality of Scotland’s place in the UK. With all due respect to those on the Government Benches, we have the ability to get rid of the coalition Government and the things they are doing, and vote in a Labour Government. That is the duty of the 41 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament, which we have because we are in the United Kingdom. We get to choose for everyone.
	For me as the Member who represents 75% of Tam Dalyell’s old constituency of West Lothian, it is the answer to the West Lothian question. He wondered why he could talk about Blackburn in England but not Blackburn in Scotland, but I can talk about Blackburn in both countries in this Chamber, because the policies of this Parliament affect people in England and in Scotland—in both Blackburns.
	I am seeking a permanent place in the UK, but one that is changing. It is about Scotland in an economically safer place: the UK’s economic resilience is a thing that Scotland has. Think of what happened when £44.7 billion of UK taxes were used to save RBS, plus £20 billion for HBOS and £20 billion for Lloyds TSB, which has places in Scotland. The resilience of the UK economy was the reason we could survive that, and Scotland would not have survived it without being part of the UK.
	With quantitative easing, how much money was printed by the Bank of England to save the economy of Scotland, keep interest rates down, and save companies and households in Scotland? I do not like the austerity policies introduced for the people of the UK, but I understand why we need to save the economy of Scotland in a UK environment. Today, RBS announced in The Guardian that if there is independence it will switch its headquarters from Edinburgh. It has sensibly realised the problem that will exist if Scotland is cut off from the rest of the UK.
	The other thing that Scotland gets as part of the UK is fiscal independence. For reasons of good socialist practice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the much-criticised former Chancellor, kept us out of the euro and the eurozone. He kept us out of the stability and growth pact and away from the budgets that are now being written for the eurozone countries through the two pack and the six pack that we would have faced. I have sat on the European Scrutiny Committee for 15 years—the Chairman for a lot longer—and we have heard President Barroso say that Scotland will have to reapply to the EU and that it will get back in only if it signs up to the euro. That is why it is dangerous to leave the UK and that
	fiscal independence, and try to renegotiate another pact. There is no question but that Scotland will get back into the EU, but only if it signs up to the eurozone fiscal disciplines.
	What does that mean? A recent paper states what happened to Croatia, the latest entrant to the EU. It’s budget will be 5.4% in deficit in 2013, 6.5% in 2014, and 6.2% in 2015—but oh no it will not. It has been told that under eurozone rules it must reduce the deficit to 4.6% in 2013, 3.5% in 2015, and 2.7% in 2016. It will have to slash almost 3% off its budget. Consider what happened to Lithuania in those circumstances: a 15% collapse in its economy, a 40% cut in all public sector pay, and now it is struggling. We were there recently during its presidency, and were told that 40% of all transactions now take place under the counter without paying tax. That is the effect of the discipline of the eurozone.
	Scotland could, of course, go for the sterling currency union—the latest wheeze—which is a mini copy of the eurozone with the fiscal interests of control in the larger economy. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, delivered the home truths in Edinburgh and was quoted in the Financial Times:
	“The desire of the Scottish government to remaining the sterling area would, he stressed, sharply curtail Scotland’s fiscal and financial independence.”
	It is quite clear that the bigger country would dictate the policies of the smaller country.
	At the moment there are massive subsidies from England and its taxpayers for wind farms. Our renewables are being brought up in the UK, and they are paid for by the UK. Postal services are subsidised in exactly the same manner, and under independence there would need to be either a massive subsidy through the taxpayer, or a massive hike in postal charges. The best thing we can do is remain in the UK and fight for change that benefits Scotland in the UK.

Fiona O'Donnell: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. Scotland has a proud and distinct history within the UK, and the UK is a union state rather than a unitary state. John P Mackintosh, former MP for Berwick and East Lothian was a great thinker and proponent of devolution. He said:
	“People in Scotland want a degree of government for themselves. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise the institution to meet those demands.”
	Those words are now engraved about the Donald Dewar Room in Holyrood. Unfortunately, it was beyond the wit of the SNP to be a part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, where men and women across Scotland’s civic society joined together to devise the Scottish Parliament, which now provides Scottish accountability for Scotland to make distinctive decisions on a wide range of policy.
	For those of us in the Labour movement, devolution is about so much more than political accountability. I, along with 74% of voters, said yes in September 1997. I had seen how our councils in Scotland had battled to protect our people from the worst excesses of Thatcher’s Government. Her plan, and we now know it was her plan to close the pits and escalate the dispute, devastated my constituency. I wanted greater protection from any future Tory Government. Just yesterday in the Scottish
	Parliament, we have seen how that can happen. Despite John Swinney saying that he did not want to let Westminster off the hook and Nicola Sturgeon preferring a scrap with Westminster to scrapping the bedroom tax, thanks to the efforts of Jackie Baillie, Iain Gray and the Govan Law Centre, people in my constituency and across Scotland are now protected from this inhumane measure. I also want to give credit to my own local housing association, which has found a legal way to protect its tenants. This is the success and the power of devolution. This is the reality of having the best of both worlds.
	I have known since my early years that I was not a nationalist. I remember a conversation on the Fort William primary school minibus. A nationalist girl took out a sweetie paper, tore it in half, and explained to me that this was what happened to Scotland’s wealth. I acknowledge that the nationalist argument has moved on from sweetie papers since then, but what it cannot challenge today—no matter how many White Papers it publishes, however much it uses our civil service for its political ends and however much it seeks to silence those who even dare to ask questions of its case—is the fact that Scotland, as part of the UK, is better placed to do good here at home and around the world.
	In a packed Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh this week, the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) spoke about the difference that Scottish MPs made in this place in stopping military intervention in Syria. In the recent report from the Select Committee on International Development, we can also see the good that we do. I urge the voters in Scotland: do not tear my country apart and do not tear my family apart.

Iain McKenzie: I will endeavour to be as brief as possible, because I know that other Members are still waiting to contribute to the debate.
	I believe that Scotland’s place in the UK is about being part of one of the largest economies in Europe and the sixth largest in the world. I believe that separation from the rest of the UK would give Scottish businesses an unnecessary barrier to trading with our biggest market. We know, without doubt, that the rest of the UK is Scotland’s biggest market. Independence would turn our border into a barrier for existing and future trade. What sense would that make? The open border between Scotland and the UK brings significant economic, trade and employment opportunities. As part of the UK, Scotland has access to a single market of approximately 70 million people.
	In addition to shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk to be shared, something seen most recently by the bail-out of the banks by the UK Treasury. The UK Treasury used £37 billion to bail out Scottish-based banks during the world financial crisis, saving more than 400 RBS jobs in Inverclyde. The evidence is that, economically and socially, the Scottish people are better off being part of a Union that pools risks and rewards. There is, of course, also significant UK public sector employment in Scotland. Two thirds of all civil servants in Scotland work for the UK Government. UK defence contracts are also essential to Scottish industry. The Ministry of Defence has some 700 direct contracts in Scotland, supporting thousands of jobs. We also have cross-border private sector trading. Ease of doing business and contract tendering are essential for bringing success to Scottish firms in a
	wider UK market. Clearly, Scotland has an important economic relationship with the rest of the UK, benefiting from access to a single market comprising of tens of millions of people.
	The facts speak for themselves: Scottish business buys and sells more products and services from the UK than any other country in the world combined. In 2010, 70% of Scotland’s exported goods went to other parts of the UK and 70% of imports are estimated to have come from the UK. That clearly demonstrates that Scotland’s economic performance is stronger because it is part of a larger integrated UK economy. Exit the UK and our border becomes a barrier: a barrier that will impede and restrict ease of trade.
	Even where free trade agreements exist alongside controlled borders, neighbouring countries with similar economies are affected by the presence of that border. Analysis finds, for example, that trade between the US and Canada is thought to be 44% lower than it could be as a result of the border between them. It is not just business that will be disadvantaged. Labour migration between Scotland and the rest of the UK is also estimated to be as much as 75% higher in an integrated UK, allowing the sharing of skills and knowledge. Leave the UK, and we create an unnecessary barrier to trade with the rest of the UK. That is why Labour’s vision for Scotland is about working across borders. Our vision for Scotland is being part of bigger; not what independence offers—part of smaller.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the laziest forms of political argument is to put up a straw man, knock it down and think the argument has been won. We had an example of that from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). What he is saying to this House and the Scottish people is that they have two choices: independence or this, which is as good as it gets. That is not the choice. If by “as good as it gets” he means the policies of the current UK Government, I think I am just as much opposed to them as he is, however much we might disagree on other matters.
	The current situation is not as good as it gets—of course it is not. The way to change that, however, is to campaign against those policies. The way to change that is to win the next general election. The way to change that is to use the powers we already have and those that are coming. We never hear from the Scottish Government about the fact that the Scotland Act 2012, which was passed in this place, is coming into force in a number of stages. The Act will devolve fiscal powers to a degree we have not had before in Scotland. What does the Scottish National party want to do with those powers? What is it doing with the powers it already has? In my city, people are desperate for affordable housing. Why are we not using some of the powers we already have to increase investment in housing to stop the housing crisis? There are so many things the Scottish Government could be doing with what we already have. So no, it is not as good as it gets: it is up to us to make it better—within the United Kingdom.

Margaret Curran: Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer and welcome to your position—I mean Madam Deputy Speaker. I was
	in the Scottish Parliament for 12 years. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me start again.
	I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) for securing it. As ever, his contribution was substantial and well informed. What has been most striking about the debate so far has been the demand for it and the pressing nature of the time given. I call on the Government to find time in their schedule to debate this pressing issue. Scotland has two Parliaments, and it is important that this one rises to the occasion to debate this important issue.
	As I said, this has been mostly a good debate. As hon. Members will know, I stand here to support the cause of Scotland staying part of the Union, but I would ask that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) be given more time in future debates, because I think he makes my case strongly for me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) made clear in his compelling speech, and as was as echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), Scotland can have a better future, but based not on separation and pulling away from our friends and allies, but on co-operation. Based on the values of solidarity and equality, we can build a new future for Scotland and for future generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, this is not a binary choice. Scotland can have a better future.
	It is in the nature of my job that I often travel around the different parts of Scotland. I sit in many taxis, and I talk to many taxi drivers; and I go to a few bars—not as many bars as taxis—and I talk to people in bars. It has become clear to me that in our schools and homes there is a sense that the debate has entered a new phase. Throughout Scotland, people understand that we are deciding the future of our country, for our families and for generations to come. It will be one of the biggest decisions we Scots will make in our lives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) put it so well, and its effect will be felt not just by us, but by our children and our grandchildren.
	Across Scotland, in the characteristic way demonstrated today, people are asking, “What are the consequences of independence? What will it mean for me and my family?” Important questions are being asked, and ordinary people were promised by the SNP Government that they would be answered, but it is widely recognised now, throughout Scotland, that the White Paper systematically failed to do that, as my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) indicated. We were told the White Paper would resonate throughout the ages, but the view in Scotland is that it did not really last a fortnight.
	Fundamental questions persist—questions that people ask me time and again. I know that not everyone likes to hear this, but we have to face the facts and spell out the impact that independence would have on people throughout Scotland. It is time to get real about the independence debate, so I want to spell out what separation would mean for families across Scotland and respond to some of the concerns about independence that people
	have raised with me. We need to get away from the clichés and the jargon, and make this debate real for ordinary people across Scotland. To start, we have heard about comments from the First Minister. I have got news for him: no one exemplifies the political elite more these days than Alex Salmond. He is so enjoying the comforts of his office that he has forgotten that his primary duty is to be straight with the people of Scotland. It is time he got away from the dinner circuit, and got out there and started telling the people of Scotland the truth about independence.
	I want to share some facts with the House that I believe people across Scotland should know before they cast their vote. From talking to people—others will have had this experience—I know that the fundamental question they are asking themselves is, “Will it make me better off or worse off?” It is not a surprise, therefore, that arguments about currency, borrowing and financial regulation have dominated the debate so far. What would the nationalists’ plans for the currency mean for families? According to independent experts, they would mean higher interest rates—1.5 percentage points higher than in the rest of the UK.
	What would that mean for someone struggling to raise a family? It would mean higher credit card borrowing costs. It would mean that someone who buys their Christmas presents on credit and pays off their card over the year will pay more. It means it will take people longer to pay off their mortgages. And when we talk about the Bank of England, what do we mean? Why is it so important? At the moment, it sets interest rates, determining how much people pay on their mortgage. Under the SNP’s plan, Scotland’s mortgage rates would be set by a bank in London over which Scotland would have absolutely no control or say. How would that empower people in Scotland?
	As we have said, working across the UK keeps the cost of goods and services low because, as the major supermarkets have told us, a market of 60 million people allows costs to be spread wider than in a market of 5 million. What does that mean? It means that they
	“would treat it as an international market…by putting up…prices”.
	Those were not my words, but the words of a supermarket boss, quoted recently in The Financial Times—and, it must be said, endorsed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, because it is worried about higher costs for ordinary working people in Scotland. That is why all this matters.
	The National Association of Pension Funds has said that the value of pension funds would be “eroded” in an independent Scotland, and Scottish Financial Enterprise has warned that Scotland faces a multi-million-pound bill for a new regulator. What does that mean? It means, in short, that our pension contributions will be paying for independence. It is time that the First Minister was straight with the Scottish people. It is time that he told them that cross-border pension costs resulting from independence would increase costs in Scotland, and would undermine and erode the value of our pensions.
	Finally, what does this tell us about Scotland’s public finances? I do not believe for a second—and let me say again that it is time that the SNP was not allowed to put up this straw man—that Scotland could not survive as an independent country; but surviving is not thriving. We know that, at present, Scotland gets back from the UK more than it pays in. In 2010-11, Scotland contributed
	£56.9 billion to the shared UK pot, and got back £64.5 billion. What does that mean for Scottish families? It means that we have £1,200 more per head. For Labour Members, the ability to redistribute funds across the UK is a point of pride.
	My approach to the referendum is very simple. When we look at the great strengths that Scotland has—its great geography, our industries and the resilience, resourcefulness and skill of our people—we see what kind of a future we can have with those great strengths. We face enormous challenges too—we need to fight the poverty that is still so deeply embedded, and we need to tackle ill health—but the way in which to meet those challenges and maximise that resource is to exploit the values that have built the great achievements of the past, from the NHS to the welfare state. With those enduring values, we can work together in partnership for a new Scotland for new times: not pulling away with a deceit on the Scottish people, but delivering a promise to work in partnership for a better world and a better future.

Alistair Carmichael: Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing the debate and expressing my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it. It has been an excellent debate, made all the better by the fact that we have heard voices from the whole of the United Kingdom. It has brought contributions of both passion and intellect, and I think we should thank all who have taken part in it.
	This is one of Scotland’s two Parliaments, and it is right that we should take the opportunity to discuss Scotland’s future at a crucial moment in our history. This Parliament makes key decisions for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom in many areas: the economy, defence, international relations and pensions, to list but a few. As an integral part of the United Kingdom, this Parliament, and those within it who represent constituents throughout the UK, make decisions on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. However, this Parliament also recognised in 1997 that some decisions are better taken closer to the people, and it was through this House that the Scotland Act 1998 was delivered, providing real devolution of power within a strong United Kingdom. That decision was revisited by the work of the Calman commission in 2008, and implemented in the Scotland Act 2012.
	The balance of powers between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament is a dynamic settlement, and will rightly continue to be so. The debate on where that balance is struck is a debate that presupposes our continued membership of the United Kingdom family, but the question that will face us on 18 September is quite different: should we remain part of that family, or should we become an independent country?
	Choosing to leave the United Kingdom would be a fundamental and irreversible step. As part of the UK family, we have a shared history and share many common values. As part of the United Kingdom, those of us in Scotland—like people living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—benefit from the UK’s size and scale. We also benefit from the UK’s international influence, and from its economic strength. Scotland, like the rest of the UK, contributes to those benefits. We contribute
	in all manner of ways: economically, culturally and socially. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) put it: together, we are truly greater than the sum of our constituent parts.
	If we vote for independence, however, we walk away from those benefits. Scotland’s future would be based on a series of protracted negotiations with dozens of different states and organisations. Which currency would Scotland use? How would Scotland join the EU, and what terms of membership would it be able to secure? Would Scotland have to join the euro or become part of the Schengen arrangements? These are all questions to which the people of Scotland want answers. The nationalists owe them answers, but so far they have failed to deliver them. The truth is that all these issues would require detailed negotiations to pull Scotland out of the United Kingdom family of which it has been an integral part for over 300 years and to establish a new set of international relationships. Independence is a 20th century—or maybe even a 19th century—solution in search of a 21st century problem. Across a world in which change comes at a breathtaking pace, the prevailing trend is to pull down barriers and borders, not to put them up.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman says that some questions need to be answered. We know that some of them can be answered only by the European Commission. As Scottish Secretary, he should be Scotland’s man in Westminster, rather than Westminster’s man in Scotland. Will he ensure that the UK Government go to the European Commission and get answers to those questions that he describes as vital?

Alistair Carmichael: The answers to those questions, if they were ever to be posed, would not be given by the European Commission; they would be given by the 28 member states of the European Union. The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to remind the House that we have already heard from a number of them that this would not be a straightforward, painless process. If Scotland walked away from the United Kingdom, she would walk away from membership of the EU and would be required to negotiate her way back in.
	As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds. We have a strong Scottish Parliament in charge of key areas of Scottish life: health, education, transport and criminal justice. When it makes sense to do so, key decisions of the state are reserved to the UK Government and Parliament here to be taken on behalf of all citizens across the United Kingdom. Ours is a flexible settlement. When it makes sense to do so, we revise the settlement to provide further powers and to increase the Scottish Government and Parliament’s responsibility and, crucially, their accountability, not just for spending money but for raising it too.
	The Scotland Act 2012 will substantially increase the Scottish Parliament’s powers, and it does so on the basis of evidence, consensus and consideration, ensuring that we adapt and evolve, but never at the expense of losing what works well and what works in the interests of all, right across the United Kingdom. All this—the creation of a Scottish Parliament and the incremental provision of further powers for it—has been designed by Scots and delivered by Scots for Scots, through this United Kingdom Parliament. Our devolution settlement is well and truly stamped “Made in Scotland”.
	Right now, however, the issue on which we are all focusing is whether Scotland will remain part of the Union. Let me turn to the question of currency. It has featured strongly in this debate, and little wonder. The currency that we use is vital to all of us. It is vital for individuals buying food and paying off loans; for businesses paying employees, and trading with one another and across borders; for our banks and financial institutions; and, of course, for Scotland’s economy as a whole. Last week, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, set out his views on currency unions in very measured and, as he described it, “technocratic” terms. Governor Carney highlighted the principal difficulties of entering a currency union: losing national sovereignty; the practical risks of financial instability; and having to provide fiscal support to bail out another country. A currency union would involve giving up some national sovereignty over economic policy. Why would it be in an independent Scotland’s interest to join a currency union?

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Alistair Carmichael: It was not worth taking the hon. Gentleman’s last intervention, so I am not going to take this one.
	Joining such a union would result in severe limits to Scotland’s economic freedom and a risk of losing economic resilience and credibility. What about the continuing UK? We heard about this from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). A currency union would expose the continuing UK to the risk of bailing out banks in an independent Scotland if they were to get into difficulties again—these would be banks over which it would have no control, their being regulated under a different system in a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said it is highly unlikely that a currency union could be agreed, because it is highly unlikely that a currency union could be made to work. No one should vote for an independent Scotland on the basis that they will get to keep the UK pound sterling. Independence means leaving the UK’s monetary union; the only way for Scotland to be sure of keeping the UK pound as it is now is to stay in the UK. Nothing the Scottish Government have asserted changes that reality.
	Earlier this week I was asked by a journalist what I expected to be doing on 19 September this year. I was able to reply that I am almost certain that I shall be celebrating the continuation of a highly successful Union, one that has been built on shared effort, common endeavour and, yes, love—19 September will be my
	27th wedding anniversary. As I celebrate that anniversary with my English-born wife and my half-English, half-Scottish children, I am confident, but by no means complacent, that we shall be able to toast the continuation of that other highly successful Union, the one between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

William Bain: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall sum up.
	We have had an interesting afternoon, and this debate has shown the best of the House of Commons: it has at times been irreverent, moving and witty, but it has also provided serious analysis of serious factual issues relating to this whole discussion of the constitution of the United Kingdom. We heard 25 contributions from Back Benchers. I have insufficient time to run through all of them, but I was particularly struck by the first, which came from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who chairs the Treasury Committee. He emphasised clearly that for a functioning currency union there needs to be a banking union, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said, a political union, too. As Martin Wolf wrote in the Financial Times last week, the Bank of England cannot serve two masters, and that was the point that came from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) spoke passionately about the contribution of the UK Labour movement in Scotland’s development. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) spoke about the scale and extent of the positive potential in Scotland’s economy if we make the right choice in this referendum in terms of our energy policy and in keeping the family of nations that is the United Kingdom together. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), along with other hon. Members, spoke about the head and heart case for keeping the UK together. Other hon. Members referred to our links with the European Union and the risks that this debate causes to those.
	This political, economic, social and cultural Union has been more than the sum of its parts for the past 300 years. I hope that this will not be the last time this House of Commons discusses that Union, and that we shall celebrate the continuation of that Union for many decades and centuries to come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered Scotland’s place in the UK.

International Wildlife Crime

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2012-13, Wildlife Crime, HC 140, and the Government response, HC 1061.]

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered international wildlife crime.
	Four years ago, I visited the Kaziranga national park in Assam, north-east India with the International Fund for Animal Welfare. The park is home to two thirds of the world’s population of one-horned rhinoceroses. Extinct in some parts of the sub-continent, there are now fewer than 3,000 of these animals left on the planet. But in the short space of time since I visited Kaziranga, more than 75 rhinos have been killed by poachers, a rate that has risen such that last year saw the highest number of killings in more than two decades.
	The park is a UN world heritage site and an area where those animals are protected. The poaching is undoubtedly driven by the illegal trade in wild animal parts, which has never been more serious. The effects are not just catastrophic for wild animal populations, some of which are now at real risk. This hideous trade impacts on communities and fuels serious crime. The UN estimates that it is now the third most lucrative criminal activity after narcotics and human trafficking, worth a staggering $19 billion a year.
	Next week, the Government will host the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for working hard to get these issues on the international agenda and securing the attendance of high-level delegates from so many Governments, including that of China. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also taken a strong interest in these issues.
	The conference will focus on protecting three of the most iconic species on our planet—elephants, tigers and rhinos—all of which have seen disastrous declines in numbers in recent years. Three of the nine known sub-species of tiger became extinct during the 1980s and there may be just 3,200 left in the world. At least 10,000 are needed to secure the tiger’s long-term future, but that is impossible while they are killed for their organs and hides and their habitats continue to be damaged. Some 1,000 rhinos were killed illegally last year in South Africa alone, up from just 13 in 2007. Rhinos had been a big conservation success story in recent years, but poaching on that scale is putting their future in jeopardy. In 1979, there were estimated to be 1.3 million wild elephants in Africa: now, there are fewer than 400,000. In the last three years, elephant poaching levels in Africa have exceeded 5% of the total population, and that is horribly significant because it is a tipping point: killings are now outpacing the animals’ birth rate.
	Other species are being heavily exploited by the illegal trade for traditional medicine, with turtles and seahorses harvested for food, medicine and decorative purposes, despite being protected, and 100 million sharks killed every year for their fins to be used in soup, despite an international agreement to curb that just last year. How have we got here? How have we come from an international
	focus on the importance of species conservation in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, which saw the abolition of the ivory trade and an escalation in the number of states joining the convention on international trade in endangered species, to a situation where iconic species literally face extinction?
	The international community failed to respond swiftly enough when these precipitous declines began. When we did respond, it was sometimes in the wrong way, such as when sales of ivory stockpiles were authorised in a misguided attempt to provide resources for conservation and satisfy demand for the product—an issue to which I will return in my speech.
	The killing of endangered species and the sale of their parts is not just bad news for the animals themselves: it also has a devastating impact on communities. It breaks down sustainable development opportunities such as animal-related tourism, and it leaves communities at the mercy of criminal gangs. The impact of poaching can be as damaging to fragile communities as disease. New evidence has shown that countries with the highest incidences of child mortality also have the highest incidences of elephant poaching. Poverty and poor governance are the enabling factors for poaching. As MIKE— Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants—the United Nations-backed programme for monitoring the illegal killing of elephants, has observed, if local communities can derive little value in animals such as elephants, but only bear the costs in terms of crop damage, injury or death, incentives for conservation are lost.
	Successful programmes to protect animals must find a way to realise their value, including to local communities, for instance through eco-tourism. For some, the idea of placing an economic value on wildlife is anathema. When I spoke to the Wildlife Trust of India, one member of the audience responded that their tigers were beyond value. In one sense, of course, we all see magnificent wildlife as priceless, but actually poachers put a very precise monetary value on these animals, and for so long as we value them less, the poaching will continue.
	The tables can be turned, however. In India I met representatives of an eco-tourism society who are literally funding poachers to become gamekeepers. Some 80 former poachers in the Manas national park now see greater value in being employed as conservation guards than in being poachers, as in their previous life.
	In recognition of the links between the availability of natural resources and economic development, part of the Government’s welcome commitment of £10 million of funding to tackle the illegal wildlife trade announced last December has been provided by the Department for International Development, but this is not aid for animals; it is aid for people.
	The right principle must be to enable and support local action to conserve wildlife. Next week’s summit must consider whether the resources directed at programmes like the African elephant action plan will be sufficient. There must be a combination of resources, international leadership—as has been shown by the UK and by President Obama in the US, who last year issued an Executive order to combat wildlife trafficking—and effective monitoring of action. All three of these components matter.
	The illegal trade in wildlife has another impact: crime—and serious crime, too. In 2009 I was invited to address the Wildlife Trust of India in Delhi where I drew
	attention to the risk that blood ivory would replace blood diamonds as a source of revenue for criminal gangs and militias. As the Foreign Secretary warned this week, there is evidence to suggest that the trade in ivory is funding terrorism. Al-Shabaab, whose attack on the Westgate shopping centre in Nairobi led to the death of 62 people, may have funded that operation with illegally obtained ivory sold on the black market to buy arms, and with the price of rhino horn on the black market now estimated at $100,000 a kilo, which is more than the price of gold or platinum, it is no surprise that the most serious criminal organisations are turning to poaching to finance their activities.

Bob Stewart: I have been listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech, and it seems to me that the losses from poaching have got so immense now that Governments must have some involvement in this, and they may well be talking with forked tongue: on the one hand condemning it, while on the other hand allowing it to occur. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Nick Herbert: That is an interesting intervention, but I will let the Minister reply to it, if I may.
	Tackling this illegal trade can no longer be seen as a low priority. That is why I was proud that the Conservative party’s manifesto promised action through border policing, and this important commitment fed through to the Government’s new serious organised crime strategy, which explicitly mentions wildlife crime. This prioritisation of organised crime is new and it has been welcomed by WWF, and it is essential that it is turned into effective action.

Martin Horwood: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight these connections, but he must also agree that we must put our own house in order. Is he aware that hundreds of thousands of songbirds are being killed on British sovereign territory in Cyprus, with the Ministry of Defence apparently turning a blind eye to the industrial-scale planting of acacia bushes to facilitate this, and will he join me in demanding that the MOD put a stop to this as soon as possible since it is organised crime on British sovereign territory?

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend has made his point forcefully.
	Enforcement and conservation measures, however well resourced, will never be sufficient while there is a demand for animal parts. In both the medicine and the ivory trade, seeking a reduction is not enough. As Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation has said, we need to be calling for not a reduction, but the eradication of the trade.
	We must refuse to allow cultural sensitivities to prevent us tackling so-called traditional “medicine” that does so much to fuel the illegal wildlife trade. Spurious health claims about the efficacy of rhino horn as a cure for everything from hangovers to cancer led directly to the extinction of the Javan rhino two years ago and the huge spike in killings of the African rhino. Education programmes to challenge the myth of traditional remedies are vital, and so is leadership by Governments.
	Seeking an eradication is entirely incompatible with farming wild animals such as rhinos, as some have suggested, so that their parts can be sold. We must choke demand; not stoke it. That is why there should be a total ban on further ivory sales. As shadow Environment Secretary, I strongly opposed the sale of stockpiles, proposed by Tanzania and Zambia, in 2010. We took that decision because the 2008 sales were a complete failure. Far from reducing poaching, as some thought that they might, the sales led to a huge spike in killings. A report the next year showed that 38,000 elephants were then being poached a year, almost three time the level before the sales. In Sierra Leone, for example, the entire elephant herd was destroyed by poachers in the country’s only national park.
	The 2008 sales were also significant in that they allowed China to participate for the first time. It purchased more than 105 tonnes of ivory, flooding the market with cheap “legitimate” ivory and stoking a demand that is now being met with poached illegal ivory. The Chinese Government’s destruction of six tonnes last month was a welcome change of emphasis, but that still leaves 99 tonnes unaccounted for. It must be a goal of next week’s conference and international agreement that there are no sales of ivory, and all stockpiles are destroyed.
	In conclusion, action to oppose the illegal trade in wild animal parts is vital to conserve endangered species, to develop communities in Asia and Africa and to cut off an important source of funding to criminal and terrorist groups. I will never forget, in Kaziranga, hearing the electrifying roar of a tiger in the wild, yet seeing the sorry fate of a captive tiger orphaned by poachers. It would be a tragedy if magnificent animals such as those were lost from the wild. Next week’s conference offers a real chance to prevent that from happening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Regrettably, we do not have a lot of time for this important debate. Rather than have a time limit, I will ask Members to do their level best—sit down, Mr Amess, I will not forget you—to take five minutes. If each Member takes approximately five minutes, I think that we will get everyone in, including the wind-ups, by 5 o’clock. The clock is against us.

Joan Walley: I will do my best to keep within your five-minute time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for nominating this important debate, particularly as it takes place the week before this most important high-level conference. It is clear that we need to send out a powerful message from this Chamber that we have to take action on illegal wildlife trade, and the conference at Lancaster house next week will be a key part in getting that action. Debating the matter today is just so important.
	Today, we have seen the Paris ivory crush, which has sent out a powerful message, and we need to do something equivalent to that. In France, 3.5 tonnes of ivory has been crushed. We need to get it across to everyone involved in decision-making that work must be done in this area and that political leadership is needed. We
	must send Government Ministers to that conference next week with everything at their disposal to ensure that we make progress.
	I also want to refer to the Environmental Audit Committee report, “Wildlife Crime”. It is the third report of session 2012-13. As many Members will know, we had a debate on that report in the Chamber. Our recommendations were to the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the detailed evidence we received show that we need a cost-cutting response from Government. I hope that they will be the basis on which some of the work will be taken forward.
	If all today’s debate does is solicit the response we have received at long last from DEFRA and the Home Office on the future of the national wildlife crime unit, at least that is a little step forward in the long journey of protecting endangered species and other wildlife. That is welcome, but the funding is still being protected only up until 2016. We need a permanent post with permanent funding that goes well beyond 2016 if we are to take the action that we need.
	I desperately want the UK Government to take up the issues of protecting the environment, nature and biodiversity. I want them to do what they say and say what they do about the concerns in Parliament. Parliament has a role in showing how important that leadership will be.
	First things first. As we have heard from the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who helped to secure the debate, and as we have seen from the support for early-day motion 773, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—as I have said in previous debates, if elephants ever need a friend he is the right person to provide protection for them—there is a sad truth here. Although the population of elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, was once more than 100,000 it might now be as low as 2,500. Every 15 minutes, only three times the time we have in which to speak today, an elephant is brutally killed and butchered for its ivory tusks. In 2013 alone, 40,000 died. The global population of tigers numbers between 3,000 and 4,000.
	When we deal with wildlife crime, we are dealing not just with endangered species but with international security and an illegal trade worth £19 billion annually that feeds highly organised criminal networks. For all those reasons, urgent action is needed.
	The high-level conference will take place at Lancaster house next week is important. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has shown leadership in putting his weight behind the conference. He has shown that he cares, as he did about the flooding down in the south-west, and has been particularly active and involved in ensuring that all possible support is given to next week’s conference. That is why we must ensure that we do not let anybody down and why I feel that the other recommendations of our report must be taken forward.
	I am thinking in particular about the new regulations that the Government need to introduce to update the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, and perhaps the Minister can refer to them when he winds up. Our report highlighted the lack of progress in that regard and I was interested to see that one reason given for not introducing the regulations—at
	a time when we have a Deregulation Bill, I must add—was the work for and the focus on the conference next week. We should not just have a conference; it should be matched by the work of all Government Departments. We want to hear about the review of the COTES regulations and how the new regulations will be introduced, and it is regrettable that the review has been delayed.
	The conference is next week, so let me turn very briefly to the agenda—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I hope that the reference will be brief. I am avoiding setting a time limit, but I asked Members to speak for only five minutes and the clock is very clear.

Joan Walley: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	When I asked the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee whether he supported the African elephant action plan he said yes. That has eight objectives, and a clear commitment to funding is needed. DFID has contributed £10 million, which will be really important, but the Born Free Foundation says that that amount is required every year for the next 10 years.
	We have a clear opportunity next week to make real progress on many of the issues highlighted in the report. The clock, as you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is ticking, not just for us here, but for these endangered species. I urge the Minister to take on board the many contributions that hon. Members have made today.

Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on saying much of what needs to be said, making our lives and yours, I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, easier.
	I applaud the fact that the Duke of Cambridge has joined his father, the Prince of Wales, and his father, the Duke of Edinburgh, as the third generation of royals who have chosen to participate in and throw their weight behind the London conference at Lancaster House. I hope that United for Wildlife will prove to be exactly that: an alliance of worldwide organisations and Government agencies with one clear aim in mind, which is to protect the wildlife of the world.
	It is important that we seek to identify the scale of international criminality involved in this trade, as my right hon. Friend sought to do. For six years in the 1990s, I served as chairman of the all party group on animal welfare and was privileged to work closely at that time with the Environmental Investigation Agency, an incredibly brave organisation whose staff went undercover and did a huge amount at that time to seek effectively to terminate the trade in ivory, with huge success. Therefore, it is a great sadness that that trade has picked up again, largely as a result of the action of international Governments, who, as my right hon. Friend said, mistakenly chose to reintroduce the trade in ivory stocks, which led to further demand.
	Points have been made about the manner in which even in the Kruger national park, for God’s sake, rhinos that were hunted in their tens five or 10 years ago are now hunted in their thousands, which is appalling. We have put so much effort into the preservation of habitat that it would be a fine irony, would it not, Madam
	Deputy Speaker, if we preserved the habitat but not the animals that want and need to live in it. The lions, rhinos and elephants of Africa are important magnificent beasts, as are the tigers of Asia.
	There are two markets. The first is the moronic tourists who with telescopic rifles slaughter wild animals from a safe distance and then go home and brag about how brave they have been and how close they got to the kill. Those people need to be ostracised totally, and it is up to the international community to seek to control the tourist trade—I use the word “tourist” loosely—in what is revoltingly, but accurately known as “canned” hunting. These are cowardly acts and they should be condemned as such.
	There is a second and much more sinister side to this, and that is the Chinese and far east mafia, who trade in rhino horn and tiger bone as traditional remedies that are no more effective or useful than your or my toenail clippings. This is criminality piggybacking on primitive culture to service a serious demand for medicine that has no medicinal value whatever. There has to be a need for concerted international effort at the highest level to stamp out this strand of crime. We fight the trade in drugs and blood diamonds, we fight money laundering and people trafficking, but while claiming that we care about the environment, the international community has paid far too little attention to our diminishing wildlife heritage and those who prey upon it.
	The London conference has to deliver not a plan for talk but a plan for action, backed by hard cash and by absolutely ruthless enforcement.

Richard Benyon: There is nothing sadder in this House than an ex-Minister who cannot shake off his former brief. It had been my intention to widen my horizons now that I have the freedom of the Back Benches, but I could not resist joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in their attempt to secure this debate, and I am delighted that we were successful.
	I am particularly delighted that there is now a cross-Government approach to dealing with this problem and that it is no longer viewed simply as an environmental one. It is fundamentally an economic, social and security issue. I am very pleased that the Minister for Government Policy will respond to the debate, which demonstrates the cross-Government value of our deliberations in the context of next week’s conference. It mirrors what is happening in other countries. For example, the leadership shown by Secretary Clinton and now Secretary Kerry is drawing together what is happening not only across the United States Government, but internationally. There is also the leadership shown by Bob Zoellick, who cares about this passionately, when he chaired the World Bank.
	Last year I attended a United Nations Environment Programme conference in Nairobi on behalf of the Government. I took some time to go and see some of the partnership working that will tackle the problem. I visited a wonderful project run by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in partnership with the Kenya Wildlife Service, at Amboseli. I saw how a really well
	thought through partnership process between a non-governmental organisation and a Government body can deliver protection on the ground.
	I also visited the Northern Rangelands Trust and saw how it is working with local people across a vast area of northern Kenya, providing them with a better price for their cattle, better grazing for their cattle, water supplies for their village and building schools, all under the umbrella of protecting wildlife. That was being delivered on the ground among people who live on less than a dollar a day. It is about joining up all the factors behind the problems we face in the illegal wildlife trade.
	I will never forget the image of President Moi setting fire to Kenya’s stockpile of ivory in 1989. That sent a message around the world that the trade in ivory is wrong, that it is illegal and that it must stop. I applaud the Government of Kenya, the Government of Zambia and, in particular, the Government of Gabon, who have shown great leadership in this matter. I applaud other Governments beyond range states, such as those of the Philippines, the Indian state of Maharashtra and the United States for destroying theirs. China is stepping up to the mark by coming to the conference and talking meaningfully about ending the trade and destroying some of its stockpiles. As we have heard, France is doing the same.
	The underlying point about the conference is that we must support the African elephant action plan. We must see it as an African initiative supported by countries around the world that have stockpiles. We must recognise the cost and impact of those stockpiles, because they give the promise of a market in countries where ivory is still used for aesthetic purposes. We all know that it has a devastating effect. I have been sent some terrible statistics. In 1976 there were 120,000 elephants in Tanzania’s Selous national park. In 2007 that number was down to 55,000. Last year it was 13,000. It is at a tipping point. We risk seeing wholesale extinctions on our watch in certain African countries.
	We should not be thinking only about Africa, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs reminded us. A wonderful organisation called Elephant Family reminds us that Asian elephants are also poached for ivory. Many of our constituents visit countries, such as Thailand, and take part in tourist opportunities involving tame elephants that might have been brutally captured in countries such as Burma. That is having a devastating effect on those countries as well.
	The Government should be congratulated on a number of initiatives. My right hon. Friend talked about MIKE. Operation Wisdom is an international policing operation tracking down the perpetrators of this crime. The British Army is supporting Governments, such as that of Kenya, in their efforts. There are many other initiatives. The conference is the zenith of some of those initiatives, drawing them together and trying to ensure that we work collectively to bring an end to the trade.
	Seizures in the UK of ivory and other products from endangered species are also a factor. They are still seized at our borders, and we have to raise awareness of that. I have already spoken about ivory poaching in Asia.
	We are short of time, so I will end by quoting the words of Will Travers, who said on the 30th anniversary of “Born Free”:
	“No more one-off sales. No more concessions to trade. No more ivory tusks being sold at…$700 a pound. Only then will the message be clear”.
	The message is that we have to bring an end to this trade. I cannot put it better than that. We must not miss the opportunity given by the conference in London. We support the Government in their endeavours to bring together this international effort that can lead to real progress being made.

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on initiating this very important debate and on their excellent speeches. The appalling reality is that even if this House were full today, each of the 650 or so Members of Parliament could deliver a bespoke speech on wildlife crime without once repeating anyone else’s words. The natural world is under siege. Countless iconic species—we have heard endless examples today—are teetering on the edge of extinction.
	The tragedy is that the worse the problem becomes, the harder it is to address, because the closer an endangered animal moves towards extinction, the greater its market value. People used to buy rhino horns mainly for medicine, and many still do, but increasingly people now buy them as an investment. During the second half of 2011, rhino horn auction lots surged by 67% on mainland China. In effect, people are betting their money on the extinction of species and hoping for such an extinction in order to boost their investments. I cannot imagine anything more revolting, but it happens.
	I will focus on one aspect of this horror story which has already been covered in some detail—the illegal trade in ivory. Africa has lost an astonishing 90% of its elephants in the past half century. In the 1970s, Chad alone had 400,000 elephants; today, that is the entire population of elephants in the wild in all 38 range states in Africa. Chad’s elephant population is now in the low hundreds. We will remember that in March, 88 elephants were butchered in the space of one week—33 of them, we are told, pregnant females. We have heard the figures: 40,000 elephants killed a year, or one every 15 minutes. Members can do the rest of the maths for themselves. The situation is just as dire in Asia. According to the Elephant Family charity, there are only 1,200 breeding males left in India. It is an unspeakable catastrophe.
	Elephants are among the most thoughtful, intelligent and fascinating creatures. If anyone doubts that, I recommend that they look up a story I became aware of only a few days ago about two crippled old circus elephants, Jenny and Shirley. It is worth looking it up on the internet; it has been written about all over the place. The elephants met 30 years ago in a circus. Jenny was a little baby, and the older elephant became something of a surrogate mother for her. Jenny was eventually sent off to a different circus, but 20 years later they were reunited—old and damaged from the activities in which they had engaged in the circus—in a lovely sanctuary in Tennessee. There are simply no words to describe the obvious intensity of the love they had for each other for their remaining 10 years. I am not even going to try to describe it, but I encourage anyone watching this debate please to look it up. Watch it yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, and weep.
	Then we should remember that these animals are being butchered for trinkets such as toothpicks and chopsticks—nothing more noble, special or important
	than that. We should remember, too, that between the wilds of Africa and the mantelpiece, where these things often end up, there is a vortex of violent organised crime, with much of the proceeds funding terrorism. The truth is that when a consumer buys a piece of ivory, they might as well be putting money in a collection tin for al-Qaeda, or buying guns for Joseph Kony’s slave children or for Sudan’s vicious Janjaweed. We have already heard about al-Shabaab, which was responsible for the atrocities in Nairobi—a massacre funded by blood ivory. If anyone is tempted to imagine that this is not an issue for us, let them at least make those links and recognise that the ivory trade makes our world a lot less safe.
	Next week we can take a giant step towards resolving this issue, or at least beginning to resolve it. We know that it is possible. As we have heard, the world nearly put an end to the international ivory trade when it was banned in 1989. Poaching did not end, but it dropped off dramatically and the black market ivory prices slumped. Then, of course, we had the one-off sales and the black market roared back into action. It was stimulated by the existence of the legitimate market and was able to flourish under the disguise of the legal trade. According to the formidable Will Travers, who has already been cited three times today and is sitting up in the Gallery with his daughter, more elephant tusks were seized in 2011 than in any year since the ban.
	As world leaders convene in London next week, we know what needs to be done: an international ban on all forms of ivory trade, and that cannot be achieved without China. The good news is that things are beginning to happen. The country’s largest online marketplace, Taobao—the equivalent of eBay—has banned a very wide range of wildlife products, including ivory. That suggests a change in the culture of Chinese consumers, with a bit of help from the magnificent International Fund for Animal Welfare, which has been campaigning there. The Chinese Government also destroyed 33 tonnes of ivory, but the state itself still owns 30 ivory carving factories. The simple fact remains that unless they turn their attention to the legal trade, the extinction of elephants will be assured. That has to be a prime focus at the summit.
	My final point relates to the African elephant action plan, which has already been discussed at some length, so I will be brief. It is supported by all 38 African elephant range states, which I think is a first. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Government Policy will be responding to the debate, and I ask him to note that 126 Members have signed an early-day motion calling on the Government to use Department for International Development funds to ramp up support for the plan. It requires £200 million over 10 years— £20 million per year—and, in the context of our aid budget and that of other countries, that is a reasonable price to pay, given the benefits it would bring to people and, as we have heard, to nature. I am not suggesting that we go it alone, but we can take the lead, as we are already doing. The condition would be unanimous support for at least a 10-year moratorium.
	The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign Secretary have shown extraordinary leadership in recent months and I am really grateful for that, as I am sure is everyone else present, but next week’s summit is only the beginning and we must follow it through to the end.

John Randall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and others, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), on securing this very important debate. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). If only I had his oratorical skills to get my passion across: the passion is in there, burning, but I just cannot always get it out.
	I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy. That shows just how seriously this Government are taking this important issue, which matters to so many thousands of people in this country.
	I am delighted that the Government will host this important conference and I hope that a really good declaration will come out of it—perhaps something along the lines of the Marrakesh declaration, which was a 10-step action plan launched by the African Development Bank in May 2013.
	Yesterday, the Government published a document on their commitment to action on the illegal wildlife trade. I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on the funding for the national wildlife crime unit. That is a good step, but in order to achieve some continuity the funding has to have a bit more longevity.
	Members have spoken passionately about the ivory trade—it is a real issue—but I want to highlight briefly some lesser known, but equally important, areas of wildlife crime. Vultures in southern Africa are on the brink of extinction because of the use of carbofuran, a poison that poachers use when they have slaughtered an elephant or rhino in order to expressly kill vultures whose presence gives away their crime.
	Most birds around the world are threatened by the use of illegal poisons, as well as by shooting, and we should remember that this country also has a problem with wildlife crime against raptors. In particular, I make no apology for reminding the House about the fate of the hen harrier in our own uplands. Last year, the Law Commission recognised that the liability for bird of prey persecution needs to be extended, through a legal concept known as vicarious liability, to landowners who allow their gamekeepers to use illegal techniques. I hope our Government are at least looking carefully at that recommendation. Bird of prey persecution is a serious organised crime and I think that the responsibility for leading the enforcement responses should lie with the National Crime Agency, with the national wildlife crime unit providing intelligence support.
	I want to draw the House’s attention to the poaching of saiga antelopes for their horns. Saiga antelopes are unusual and rather enigmatic creatures. For those who do not know what they are, they look like antelopes with huge swollen snouts, and only the males grow horns. After the ban on rhino horn in 1993, saiga horn became a substitute in traditional Chinese medicine, and their numbers in their native central Asian steppes declined alarmingly—down by 95% by 2000. There has since been a slight increase in their numbers, but they need protection as they again face pressure from poaching. We all know about the threat to the tiger population, and that iconic species is pretty near the top of my priorities, but we have to remember the less glamorous but no less important species throughout the world.
	I look forward to hearing from the conference not just warm words, but real action worldwide, so that wildlife crime—as we have heard, it is linked to terrorism and organised crime, so it is an important and serious area of crime—can be thwarted and future generations can enjoy sharing the planet with rhinos, elephants, tigers, hen harriers and even my old friends the saiga antelopes.
	One of the things I wanted to do when I entered the House was to speak up for wildlife. I have been lucky enough to go round Britain and the world to see such animals, and I want to make sure that other people and future generations can enjoy also them.

Pauline Latham: I am delighted to speak in this very important debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and other hon. Members for securing it.
	It is our duty, as it was that of previous generations, to preserve the natural world and all its wonders for our children and grandchildren who will follow us, but given how disastrous a year 2013 was for rhino populations—the number of animals poached in South Africa was the highest for some years—it has become clear that such a legacy is under threat. Like other hon. Members, I have been very lucky in seeing these animals in the wild. I have always found rhinos particularly majestic, but unassuming—they just get on with their lives. According to reports from the Wildlife Conservation Society, more than 1,600 rhinos have been poached for their horns during the past two years, and it is estimated that only 5,000 black rhinos are alive in the wild.
	Although the toll taken by poaching on animal populations and biodiversity is undoubtedly its worst effect, many other aspects of the crime affect the human population, both internationally and locally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned, the terrible assault in the Nairobi mall last year, in which 67 people were killed, was carried out by the militant terrorist group al-Shabaab. The charity the Elephant Action League estimates that 40% of al-Shabaab’s funds come directly from the ivory trade. It therefore follows that the illegal trade in rhino horn contributes to some of its revenue. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has recently highlighted the link between poaching and terrorism, alleging that even al-Qaeda benefits from the trade.
	More generally, the increase in poaching is of concern from the perspective of international development. It is well documented that guerrilla organisations, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, have supported themselves financially by poaching. We are all aware of the horrendous practices that Joseph Kony and his army have wreaked on the people of central African states, taking children from their families and abducting, raping and disfiguring countless women. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if there was better wildlife policing in such areas, poaching could be reduced and such atrocities might become less frequent.
	I believe that poaching is a surmountable social evil. Nevertheless, given that the number of rhinos killed by poachers is 1,000% higher than it was at the start of the century, it seems that measures other than policing strategies and surveillance are needed to prevent poaching. The high value of rhino horns, elephant tusks and other
	animal parts means that poachers now use helicopters to get in and out very quickly, before gamekeepers can find them. The fact that they can get in and out so easily is a major problem, because the money they make from poaching represents what they might earn in six years in a normal job, if indeed they have one. The value of the horn is a huge problem. We will not stop the demand for it, but we must tackle the root of the problem, which is poverty. We could mitigate the impact of rhino poaching not only on the species itself, but on the human population in the areas that are affected. Misinformation about the medicinal properties of rhino horn does not help. I think that it was the President of Sri Lanka who said that the powder from the horn had cured his cancer. That is not only wrong, but it perpetrates the myth.
	We must not be complacent and think that poaching is confined to far-away countries. I was shocked to learn that rhinos in British zoos have been threatened by poaching when I met Damian Aspinall, the chairman of the Aspinall Foundation and the owner of Port Lympne wild animal park. The Aspinall Foundation does wonderful conservation work. In 2012, it collaborated with DHL, the logistics company, to introduce three of Lympne park’s black rhinos into the protected environment on the reserve of Tony Fitzjohn in Tanzania. Eventually, they will be released into the wild.
	I was shocked to learn that in March last year, staff at Lympne park were notified that an attempt would be made on the rhinos in the park. Although it may seem perplexing and even slightly ridiculous that such an attempt would be made in this country, it is sadly not as unlikely or rare as it sounds. In 2012, the national wildlife crime unit issued a warning to all British zoos, encouraging them to increase security measures to prevent such crimes.
	Mr Aspinall discussed with me the extreme lengths to which some game reserves are going to protect their rhinos. In 2013, the Sabi Sand game reserve in South Africa began injecting its rhinos’ horns with parasites. That has no effect on the rhinos, but when the rhino horn is ingested in medicine, it can cause serious illness to the consumer. Mr Aspinall rightly thinks that there must be a better way to tackle the problem, because the consumer buys the product in good faith—stupidly, perhaps, but in good faith—and the poison might unintentionally have a more serious effect.
	It is important that pressure is brought to bear on countries that import rhino horn to stop the trade and for Governments to assist zoos in their countries to keep the animals safe. I am delighted that Prince William is helping to raise awareness of the plight of rhinos by joining a charity. His interest will make even more people aware of the issue. There is an urgent need to deal with poaching because of the risk that it poses to international security and anti-terrorism efforts, and because of the effects that this awful trade has on communities in the affected countries.
	Next week’s conference is timely. I am sure that the Minister will take all the issues that hon. Members have raised to that conference and stress how important they are to the future of wildlife.

David Amess: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this debate
	and the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member, on its good sense in scheduling it. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) said.
	I want to do everything that I can to protect wildlife in this country. Through the good offices of Mr Attenborough, a whole new generation of people have been introduced to the joy of wildlife. The message that that one individual has managed to convey to so many people is very important indeed.
	In 2002, I modestly introduced a ten-minute rule Bill called the Endangered Species (Illegal Trade) Bill. It was sponsored by none other than Miss Ann Widdecombe. We went to Heathrow airport to examine the ill-gotten gains of the trade. I am very disappointed that international wildlife crime has developed as it has in the 12 years since. In particular, I am very disappointed in my lack of influence in this regard, but never mind.
	Unfortunately, as the Foreign Secretary said in his speech on this issue in September, the trade is “booming”. It is impossible accurately to assess the figures, but the trade was estimated to be worth £5 billion in 2002 and it is now estimated to have grown to £12 billion. It is the world’s fourth largest criminal market after drugs, counterfeiting and human trafficking. It is absolutely appalling.
	An example of the sheer scale of the problem is shown in the recent announcement by the convention on the international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—which last year had the highest level of ivory seizures for 25 years: 41.6 tonnes. As other Members have said, it is estimated that 22,000 elephants were killed in Africa two years ago out of a population 500,000. Yesterday, I saw on the front of the Daily Mirror a Kenyan poacher who boasted that he had personally slaughtered more than 70 elephants. He commented that the elephants screamed as they died but said:
	“To me, this was just business.”
	Such stories are truly shocking, and the figures are mindboggling. If we do not take action soon, wild species and their communities face irreversible damage. Once they are gone, we will never get those species back.
	It is encouraging that the level of commitment to this issue by Governments, enforcement bodies and NGOs has increased hugely over the past 10 years, and I commend the UK Border Force for its work on the seizure of illegal ivory, particularly last year when 80.7 kg of illegal ivory was seized at British airports. The UK Government are truly leading the way in tackling international wildlife crime, and we should be proud of that. The report released today by the Government entitled “The UK commitment to action on the illegal wildlife trade”, and the upcoming summit, are a testament to the Government’s commitment.
	I hope that the conference acts as a monitor of current progress on the implementation of commitments, and ensures that sufficient action is taken to improve enforcement, reduce demand for illegal products, and support sustainable economic development. To ensure that, however, we must invest for the long term and I encourage the Government to do even more. They have already pledged £10 million to end illegal wildlife trading, but I hope they are prepared to do even more.
	I was happy to see today that the Government have announced continued support and funding for the work of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime, as well as a commitment to fund the national wildlife crime unit until 2016—splendid news. However, it is important to guarantee long-term sustainable funding for the NWCU, to ensure real stability and certainty post-2016. Will the Minister comment on that?
	To be more effective in tackling international wildlife crime within and between Governments, collaboration is vital, as it is with NGOs and enforcement bodies. Because so many related issues are involved with international wildlife crime, many different Departments are required to collaborate The establishment of a cross-departmental taskforce on wildlife trafficking is very much a step in the right direction. I hope that the group encourages and co-ordinates activities to tackle the issue both nationally and internationally, leading to an eventual cross-governmental action plan for which it would then be held accountable.
	On prosecution, it is important that illicit wildlife trafficking is treated with the same level of consideration as other transnational crimes, and that targets are set. I hope that the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service can commit to that. Will the Minister assure the House that tough maximum penalties are available to tackle wildlife crime? For prosecutions for such crimes to be conducted more effectively, the judiciary must be strengthened through greater awareness. Therefore, the Sentencing Council should introduce sentencing guidelines for the judiciary on wildlife crime, and the Magistrates’ Association, which is very important on this issue, should implement training for magistrates.

Joan Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the recommendations in the Environmental Audit Committee’s report touch on the points he is making and, if implemented, could take us even further down the road? There are recommendations that the Government still have not taken on board, and they still need to be taken on board.

David Amess: I absolutely acknowledge work of the hon. Lady’s Committee and I am aware of the point she makes. I am sure my right hon. Friend has heard what she has said.
	The review and update of the control of trade in endangered species regulations announced today is a positive step and has been a long time coming. However, from the document the time scale is not clear, so I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might say something on that.
	In conclusion, it is clear that we are starting to make some progress in tackling international wildlife crime, and we have come a long way since the ten-minute rule Bill I tried to introduce 12 years ago. However, there is still more that we can do and we need to ensure long-term funding, and tough and effective prosecution. We need to continue to adopt an ever-greater collaborative and joined-up approach to tackle this issue. This conference provides a wonderful opportunity to do so.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the Front Benchers to respond I feel that Members are entitled to an explanation. We have reached
	the winding-up speeches a little faster than I had anticipated because some Members indicated that they wanted to speak and then left the Chamber. That just shows the difficulty of the Chair trying to be fair to everybody. I am sure that both Front Benchers will be generous with interventions, should further points need to be made.

Barry Gardiner: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this very important and timely debate. I also congratulate the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), on all the work that she and her Committee have done. I am mindful of the warning from the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about ex-Ministers and their briefs, so I will try to confine my remarks in that respect.
	We have heard some excellent speeches on how wildlife crime is a threat to important species and habitats both in the UK and around the world. The Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into wildlife crime, published in September 2012, welcomed the significant progress made since its predecessor Committee’s recommendations in 2004. It also made key recommendations on the steps that must be taken if the UK Government’s international leadership on wildlife crime is to be maintained and extended.
	Unfortunately, I do not think we have seen enough progress in responding to that very clear and coherent set of recommendations. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, the Chair of the Committee, is on record as having described the Government’s response as “a missed opportunity'” that showed
	“the Government have not considered the matter in the cross-cutting way that is now needed given the urgent threat to endangered species.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 148WH.]
	At this point, I must welcome the Minister for Government Policy. He is from the Cabinet Office, which shows some of that cross-cutting responsibility. By my reckoning, however, eight of the 11 recommendations made by the Committee on enforcement have still not been accepted.

Joan Walley: I can see a reaction among those on the Government Benches, but the important point is that the Committee’s inquiry showed that this is a cross-cutting issue. We cannot just have a response from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Home Office: there needs to be a joined-up response. When we made the application to the Backbench Business Committee, we requested that a member of the Cabinet be here to ensure an all-inclusive, coherent approach from the Government, and I welcome the fact that the Minister is here today.

Barry Gardiner: I hope the debate provides the spur to action that is needed. I hope that in his closing speech the Minister will set out in more detail what further action the Government intend to take to address specifically the recommendations in the EAC’s report, and to ensure that the UK is playing its full part in the fight against international wildlife crime.
	The task ahead of us remains significant. In the past two years alone, more than 1,600 rhinos have been slaughtered by poachers, according to reports from the
	Wildlife Conservation Society, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and other organisations. Moreover, about 1,000 park rangers have died in the past decade defending these animals, and I pay tribute to the
	Daily Mirror’s 
	campaign this week highlighting the sacrifices of rangers and their families.
	Illegal wildlife trade continues to generate an estimated $20 billion each year for the criminal gangs and terrorist groups who perpetrate this evil, and that does not even include the products of the illegal timber trade or illegal fishing. Those figures should give a sense of urgency and timeliness, not just to this debate but to the Government’s response. I am proud that the previous Government made important progress in helping to shape the international effort to tackle wildlife crime. As a Minister, I had the privilege of releasing two white rhinos back into the wild in Kruger national park in 2006. It was a wonderful, if—I confess—a slightly scary moment. Close up, they are enormous.
	The following year, I represented the UK at CITES CoP—conference of parties—14, in The Hague, where we resolved to strengthen national legislation and penalties to deter illegal wildlife trade; to strengthen public understanding of the benefits of sustainable international trade and of the negative impacts of illegal wildlife trade; and to increase the provision of financial resources for the operation and implementation of CITES. CITES trade regulations now apply to about 35,000 species, about 3% of which are prohibited, which is significant progress, but the fact remains that many species traded internationally play an important role in the provision of ecosystems services and in supporting local livelihoods, so ensuring that the use of, and trade in, these species is legal and sustainable has many and much wider benefits for the local communities and countries of which they are such icons.
	I am proud that, alongside our international work, the previous Government set up the national wildlife crime unit in 2006, which is now responsible for assisting with the enforcement of wildlife law and the prevention of wildlife crimes. It is important to understand that its work does not stop at the UK’s borders, and that it has a vital role in reducing the demand for the products of wildlife crime and in targeting UK citizens involved in the international trade.
	Despite these steps forward, however, as the Environmental Audit Committee has said, there is a risk that further progress will not be made without clear action from the Government. It is vital that there be no let up in our efforts. Wildlife crime in Africa poses a clear threat, not just to internationally important species but to the whole security of the region. Some of the comments from hon. Members about al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda and others reinforced that point. The UK must, therefore, continue to meet its obligations to clamp down on the trade in the products of wildlife crime, including elephant ivory and rhino horn. Poaching remains a serious problem in Africa. It has strong links to drug and human trafficking and terrorism, as hon. Members have said.
	The London conference on illegal wildlife trade, hosted by the Prince of Wales, is, as everyone has acknowledged, a tremendous opportunity to gather together international experts to work together on this issue. I echo the remarks by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee about how fortunate we are to have, in the Prince of Wales, someone showing the leadership that he continually
	does on these issues. The conference is a perfect opportunity for some key pledges to be made. It is time to build on the UK’s strong international reputation, achieved—I hope the Minister will agree—thanks to the diplomatic efforts of previous Governments.
	My experience of the international negotiations on wildlife crime is that the countries with the credibility required to improve global law enforcement and to reduce global demand are those that walk the walk. It is the job of the Minister for Government Policy to ensure that our commitment to tackling international wildlife crime continues to have real substance. The substance will not come simply from hosting conferences, important as the London conference clearly is; it will come from delivering. I hope that the Minister will answer some specific questions about how that delivery will be achieved.
	The Government’s decision to make the need to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products one of the main goals of the conference is very welcome. Will the Minister tell us what the Government aim to achieve in terms of the strengthening of CITES trade regulations? As has already been said today, the Government’s response to these challenges requires a co-ordinated approach across Whitehall. Does the Minister accept the Environmental Audit Committee’s finding that the Government are failing to work effectively because Departments are not co-operating? Can he describe the conversations that he has had with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Home Office and the Foreign Office about improving the Government’s co-ordinated, joined-up response? What, specifically, does he intend to do to ensure better, outcome-focused joint work between DEFRA, the MOD, the Foreign Office and Home Office to ensure that that improvement takes place?

Richard Benyon: Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcome the fact that there is now a Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Foreign Secretary, which draws together DEFRA, the Department for International Development, and other Departments to deal with precisely the issue that he has identified? That has been a real game-changer in helping to develop the different approach of which I spoke earlier.

Barry Gardiner: I do welcome that. It is vital that such sharing take place across Departments, but it must be focused on action and enforcement. That is why I mentioned the Select Committee’s 11 recommendations, only eight of which, I believe, have been accepted by the Government. There is more work to be done. I accept that cross-cutting work is now beginning to take place, but it must focus on action.
	The challenge of international wildlife crime also requires a co-ordinated response across the European Union. Does the Minister recognise that, whatever we are dealing with—from illegal fishing off the coast of Africa to the effect of new consumer demand for illegal rhino poaching—the UK will have the greatest effect when it works as part of a European community through initiatives such as CITES?
	The Select Committee has made a strong case for bringing together existing disparate pieces of law governing the protection of wildlife. What progress does the Government expect to make, before the election next year, on the Law Commission’s review of wildlife law?

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned illegal fishing in Africa. Does he acknowledge that, just as there are undeniable links between the ivory trade and terrorism, there are clear links between overfishing by illegal vessels in African coastal waters and the rise of piracy and terrorism? The rise of piracy in Somalia is linked almost exactly with the collapse of the country’s fish stocks, and the same now seems to be happening in Senegal, where 50,000 fishermen have warned their Government that if foreign vessels continue to deplete their oceans, they will adapt as the Somali fishermen have adapted, and become pirates. It is a security issue as well.

Barry Gardiner: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I enjoyed his collection of all that information, and his presentation of it to the House. He is absolutely right: when we look at Somalian piracy, we see that the conflicts in the horn of Africa have been driven constantly by environmental degradation. If only a fraction of the money spent by our Navy, and the navies of the world, on policing vessels that pass through the straits there—the costs of increased insurance for ships, for instance—were invested in resolving the environmental problems, we should be in a much better position.

Richard Benyon: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman also welcomes one of the steps taken at last year’s CITES meeting? A number of maritime species were listed for the first time, including several shark species, in particular the hammerhead shark. I hope that that process will continue at future CITES meetings.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of and authority on these matters. He has thrown his own cautionary tale to the winds by continuing to intervene, but he is very welcome to do so. He has made a very good point, and I absolutely agree with him. I know that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the shadow Foreign Office Minister, were here now, she would have made some comments about that. She was speaking to me only last night about how the practice of illegal shark-finning needs to be addressed. I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member for Newbury has said.
	The Environmental Audit Committee has made a strong case for bringing together existing disparate pieces of law governing the protection of wildlife. What progress do the Government expect to make on the Law Commission review of wildlife law before the election? What is the Government’s view of the specific recommendations in the Law Commission’s interim statement on wildlife crime? There are specific issues involved, including the updating of species listing and the substitution of “deliberate” for “intentionally”. The Law Commission intends to produce draft legislation alongside its final report this summer. Will the Government enable pre-legislative scrutiny of that draft legislation? It would be really helpful if the Minister could answer those questions this afternoon.
	There are real concerns that the national wildlife crime unit, set up by the last Government, has been undermined by decisions taken by Ministers. The Environmental Audit Committee specifically warned that the lack of a long-term funding agreement was making it hard for the unit to recruit, retain and develop the specialist staff required to detect and prevent wildlife
	crime. The Minister should be aware of the claims that the unit has found it difficult to appoint a wildlife crime internet researcher precisely for that reason.
	I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place on the Front Bench today. In a Westminster Hall debate in October last year, he agreed that the Government needed to
	“reach a decision on the future of the unit as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 145WH.]
	I welcome the fact that the Government managed to reach a decision before this debate. I also welcome the fact that they managed to publish the decision before the debate, albeit at 5.30 yesterday evening. Given the Government’s record, a gap of five months between a Minister calling for a decision and a decision being published might be the best we can expect. The decision is welcome, none the less.
	This shows the value of Back-Bench debates and the power that the Backbench Business Committee has to get the Government to address an issue. I see the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who sits on that Committee, nodding in agreement. Without the deadline of this debate—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman about to conclude his remarks? At this rate, we will not hear the Minister.

Barry Gardiner: I am concluding my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker. You had indicated that the time available had expanded—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I was not indicating that the hon. Gentleman’s time had expanded. I was explaining to Back Benchers, in this Back-Bench debate, that they might have had a little more time if some of their colleagues were courteous and said that they were not going to participate in the debate. The time constraints might then have been different. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could conclude so that we can hear the Minister.

Barry Gardiner: I will indeed. I was simply about to afford the hon. Member for Southend West the opportunity to intervene, as you had suggested.
	This important debate follows an excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee. The Government’s formal response to that report did not provide clear answers to the issues raised, but I hope that the Minister for Government Policy will do that today, as well as answering the clear questions I have asked and addressing the many excellent points made in contributions from both sides of the House during the debate. I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs on initiating the debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Oliver Letwin: It is a pleasure to participate in a debate in which there is considerable consensus. I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and
	South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for Southend West (Mr Amess) for illustrating extraordinarily well the issues before us. In every case, they did so with personal commitment and passion, and also with some charm. It is notable that so many Members wished to participate in a debate of this kind.
	I also very much welcome the contribution of the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). She and others pointed out that is was an auspicious day on which to hold this debate, given that it is the day on which France has joined China and the United States—in anticipation, we think, of Hong Kong—in destroying stocks. We should be very glad that is happening, but we still face considerable danger. Many points were illustrated beautifully in the speeches made, but one did not emerge and everyone in the Chamber is conscious of it: the appendix II countries are prohibited from further sale only up to 2017 and, as we saw from the one-off sale in 2008, that presents a significant risk. I understand that there are some 300,000 elephants in appendix II countries, so this is a serious issue.
	Everyone who spoke in the debate is aware, as I suspect are many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, of the extent of the impoverishment of our world that occurs as biodiversity reduces. We are not just talking about some striking animals; we are in serious peril of major extinctions. Rhino extinctions may happen very soon, but even elephant extinctions may not be too far off if we do not act properly. So it is right that the Government, the European Union and the world should take action, and those are the three levels at which we are trying to act.
	As for cross-government participation in trying to solve this problem, an issue that has come up repeatedly, the first point to make is that this Government have, for the first time, established the right kind of machinery, with the inter-ministerial group, to which attention has been drawn. This is not just any old ministerial group; it is chaired by the Foreign Secretary, and relevant Secretaries of State serve on it. We are systematically going through all the issues that emerge, and it is out of that group that the idea of the international conference was carried forward by the Government. Many hon. Members have rightly paid tribute to His Royal Highness and to the royal family as a whole. They are, of course, an inspiration on this, but it is through the inter-ministerial group that the Government have taken the idea in hand and organised what will be a major conference.
	It is also through that group that we are monitoring the activity of government in the domestic sphere. I will deal with that first and then return to the issue of the international conference towards the end of my remarks. The great bulk of the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendations have already been responded to positively. That is the case, above all, on the funding for the unit in the Home Office and, indeed, the recreation of an internet monitoring post within that unit. I take the point made by several of my hon. Friends, the Chairman of the Committee and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), that the unit needs to be a permanent feature of the scene. I am personally committed to that view, although I cannot commit the next Chancellor of the Exchequer to it. I do not know who that is going to be, although I very much hope it will be the current one, but I cannot commit
	whoever that is to what happens post-2016, nor can anybody else in this House yet. However, I can certainly say that wherever I am sitting in this House and whatever I am doing at that time, I shall be arguing for a continuation of that unit. I rather suspect, having listened to the remarks made by hon. Members from across the House, that that is a matter of some consensus, so I guess that whoever is in the next Government will continue that unit, and I certainly think they need to do so.
	A great many questions have been asked about the consolidation of the various laws. That comes in two parts, the first of which is the Law Commission activity. That is the easy bit, for us here at least, because the Law Commission is in charge of that, not the Government. As everybody in the House will be aware, the Law Commission intends to complete its work by the summer, and it would be an impertinence for me to say anything further than that that is what we have been told. I can certainly give the Opposition spokesman the undertaking that once it has produced its recommendations, we will seek to find a means of those being subject to proper pre-legislative scrutiny. That is a sensible thing to do with a Law Commission product.
	The second part falls to us, as the Government, to conduct, and I refer to the consolidation of regulations. The Select Committee rightly drew a good deal of attention to that, and it is part of the red tape challenge. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and I were both involved in the debate on the Deregulation Bill just a few days ago. I have spent a good many hours of my life in the last few years pursuing the red tape challenge, and one part of that is the consolidation of these regulations. We intend to pursue that. I am applying some gentle pressure on my colleagues in DEFRA to proceed with that at pace and I hope that we will be able to issue a consultation paper in the spring. I fully intend that we should complete the process by Christmas. I can therefore give the undertaking that the Opposition spokesman seeks—that we will seek to complete the process by the end of this Parliament.
	It is also strikingly important that we continue to work on these issues of domestic enforcement and regulation across all Departments. As my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have said, every Department of state has to participate in that effort in different ways. The point of the inter-ministerial group is to ensure that happens.
	I turn now to the international conference, the international leadership that this country is demonstrating and the question of what we hope to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, in a characteristically charming and vivid presentation, rightly said—echoed by others—that we should not assume that a conference is enough. Of course it is not, and nor would be a series of conferences, although incidentally I hope that the conference will become an institution and happen year after year, in parallel with the CITES conferences of parties. Nevertheless, the conference can, if we are both lucky and active, become a major watershed. We can achieve things by ending the conference with some clear statements of ambition and intention on the part of the very wide set of countries attending. It is not a conference of a few countries—many are coming and at very senior levels.
	What are we seeking to achieve? As several hon. Members have said, there are three parts to this and I shall dwell briefly on each. The first is better enforcement,
	which has to be done on a global scale. We are contributing significantly to what I might call the war effort. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet described the extraordinary courage of some of the people involved in enforcement. It is not an easy thing to do—I think someone mentioned that around 1,000 law enforcement officers in this area have been killed. It is not a pleasant kind of policing. It requires money, political will and activity on the ground. We very much hope that the conference will bring together all those elements and take us forward into a better, more permanent enforcement, which should also include the permanency of limitations or bans on trade. That is what we want to see.
	To make that work, the two other elements have to be in place. I was gratified that I was unable to discern any disagreement between hon. Members on either side on this point. We have simultaneously to achieve some significant and lasting reduction on the pull side—demand—and a serious-minded, sustainable alternative for indigenous populations that rely at present on this trade, in one way or another, for a large part of their income, with all the ghastly consequences that have been so well sketched by many hon. Members today.
	The question of demand reduction is extraordinarily sensitive, especially for us, because it is not in the UK that the demand exists. It is not for us to lecture other countries about how to conduct their affairs, as that would not be right or productive, but we do have to show some leadership. We hope to work with other countries that are demonstrating increasing concern in this field and come up with solutions acceptable to countries where the demands are greatest and that therefore can be sustainable. I certainly do not want to prejudge how that will look—we are not in a position to do so—and I am sure that this conference will not be the end, but will be the beginning of a process that leads us there. I am very hopeful that over the course of the next few years we will get to the point where, by one means or another, demand reduction is baked into the future.
	That brings us to the most difficult and most important thing of all: the provision of sustainable alternatives. Many years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and I found ourselves in Brazil talking about the Amazon with the amazing Mr Unger, then Minister for the Amazon, who I think rejoices in being the only Minister for the Amazon who was also a leading Harvard political theorist—and, I may say, a leading Harvard political theorist who would be a delight to the father of the current Leader of the Opposition and who disagrees with me on just about every aspect of political philosophy I have ever come across. Nevertheless, the Brazilians were serious in this pursuit and my hon. Friend and I were there to work with them on that question, and to understand better what they were up to. The point Mr Unger made repeatedly and very effectively to us was that it is all very well telling the population in the Amazon that they cannot cut down so many trees, but the truth is that that is how they feed themselves and unless we offer an alternative route to their feeding themselves and leading a halfway decent life, we cannot expect them to stop. The same is true in other contexts.
	There are two routes to the achievement of what we seek. One is the route of trying to find alternatives—other
	forms of activity which have nothing to do with animals. The second, which was beautifully illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, is to find a way of placing a value on the living animals and offering an economic prospect for those who help the living animals to live rather than causing them to die. We need to go through both those routes and we need to try to forge an international consensus about how to carry those goals forward, which also will involve money, which is why I so welcome the fact that this Government have upped the ante by giving a total of, I think, £18 million in this domain. It is part of the Darwin initiative, and because of our immense commitment through a very large and growing DFID budget we can participate and show leadership in raising money around the world to deal with this issue.
	The elements are all in place, therefore, and the last comment I want to make is that it seems to me that we have an extraordinary opportunity as a country. We are leading the charge in having this conference. We are a country that has had a long tradition of involvement in this area. We have the greatest stars globally that we can offer, namely the royal family, up front. We have a clear vision of what we are trying to achieve and we have budgets that can support the activity as well as a co-ordinated approach from Government. It would therefore be a terrible shame if we were not over the next two, three, four or five years to make use of all of that and build on it to lead the world in solving a problem that if it is not solved will very much diminish our globe.

Nick Herbert: We have had a good debate, albeit a relatively short one, and although floods and the future of the United Kingdom are, of course, pressing issues that command a great deal of concern, so too is this one. That is evidenced by the fact that there were many excellent contributions from concerned Members of this House. I think all of us have recognised that this is not just a matter of animal welfare or concern for species conservation, but that it is also a matter that spills over into other areas—international development, protection of the livelihoods of the poorest in the world and security. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, for co-sponsoring it. I thank the seven Members on my side of the House who took part, evidencing continuing Conservative concern for environmental matters. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy for coming to this House and responding to the debate, thereby demonstrating the fact that the Government take this very seriously and the cross-cutting nature of the response that is necessary. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has been present throughout, demonstrating DEFRA’s concern.
	Perhaps hon. Members should reflect that there may be an opportunity to take our collective concern on this issue forward, possibly even by creating an all-party group to pursue it.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

MRS M. BARNES (NHS TREATMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Foster.)

Kevin Barron: I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to raise this subject in today’s Adjournment debate. I understand that he makes the decision on a Thursday afternoon.
	I wish to discuss the treatment of a constituent of mine, Mrs Monica Barnes, who lives in the village of South Anston. I have been dealing with her over many years now, regarding different aspects of her health care, but my reason for wanting to speak today is to do with what has been recorded on her patient records at the Kiveton Park medical centre and the effect it may have had on her clinical treatment.
	Mrs Barnes wrote to me on 5 July 2002. She said:
	“Whenever I have attempted to obtain treatment some reference to litigation past or present has shown itself in my medical records and/or in letters of referral from the GP. This clearly shows there to be discrimination in my case. This time reference is made in the Patients Summary to the court case. See copy sent to me in very small print, enclosed.”
	I have indeed got the patient’s summary. It is dated 18 January 2001. On the bottom, it says “await judges ruling”. My constituent contacted the Information Commissioner, and a letter was sent to the practice manager on 5 September 2002. It contained the patient’s summary and the court case entry. It said:
	“In order for me to assess the practice’s compliance with the First Principle, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether individuals are made aware that personal data about them may be disclosed to other health professionals in the course of their care and treatment and the extent of such disclosures. In particular, could you please confirm whether such data as were disclosed in Mrs Barnes’ case are disclosed to other health professionals as a matter of routine, which of the conditions in the Schedules the practice is relying upon in order to make any such disclosure and whether individuals are made aware of the disclosure. Given that Mrs Barnes did not expect this, I would also welcome confirmation of these issues with regard to her case. If there is no legitimate basis for holding and disclosing the data in question when Mrs Barnes did not expect such processing, it is likely to be in contravention of the requirements of the First Principle.”
	Mrs Barnes received a reply from the Information Commissioner on 6 March 2003. I have to say that the Information Commissioner had to write to the practice on 16 December to remind it of the letter it had been sent on 5 September 2002 about what was held on Mrs Barnes’s record.
	Mrs Barnes received a reply from the Information Commissioner. It said:
	“I understand that having considered its relevance to your patient summary records, the practice has removed the entry which states “court case”. (I have requested that the practice ensures that this does not appear elsewhere in your medical records).”
	That was dated 6 March 2003. Presumably, my constituent would have been quite happy with such a positive reply. The letter went on to say:
	“Consequently, on the balance of probabilities it does seem that the data in question is not relevant and is excessive for medical purposes. It is also our view that on the balance of probability it does seem that it was not necessary for the practice to disclose the details without your consent, when you did not expect this.”
	That is a pretty firm statement that the Information Commissioner felt that it was wrong for the records to have been kept in such a way.
	In the autumn of 2010, Mrs Barnes decided to join another practice in central Rotherham that had been built in the walk-in centre that had been opened. Her medical records were requested by the South Riding Health Services Support Agency, an organisation that I had never heard of in my 20-odd years as an MP, and they were sent on 3 November before being sent on to the new practice in Rotherham town centre. When Mrs Barnes visited her new doctor in November 2010, they had her medical records but on her next attendance her new GP said that he did not have them. Mrs Barnes told me that she was prompted to investigate their whereabouts.
	In 2011, Mrs Barnes asked me to write to the chief executive of NHS Rotherham, who wrote back to me on 11 March saying that he had had the case investigated by his complaints officer who confirmed that the notes were sent on 3 November. The chief executive went on to say:
	“However, I am informed that shortly after forwarding the medical records…the…practice received a letter from the Information Commissioners office advising them that the amendments were to be made to Mrs Barnes’…records. In order to comply with the Commissioners advice, the notes had to be retrieved from Mrs Barnes’ current GP via the SRHSSA. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Kiveton Park practice had Mrs Barnes’s medical records for several weeks, it is important to note that implementing the Commissioner’s advice was onerous.”
	The chief executive wrote to me on the basis that the submission from the Information Commissioner had come in around November 2010, when my constituent was moving to another GP’s practice.
	I then received a letter from NHS Rotherham on 1 June 2011, which accepted that the Information Commissioner’s advice was given in 2003 and not more recently, as mentioned in the chief executive’s letter. That was the reason for the retrieval of the records from her new GP, as it was felt “prudent” that the medical records should be reviewed for accurate absolute accuracy. The two doctors concerned verified that the removal of information as advised by the Information Commissioner had been carried out.
	Mrs Barnes referred her case to the ombudsman. She wrote to me in October 2011 setting out a number of instances in which she believed discrimination might have taken place and said in that letter:
	“When I assessed my medical records at the Sheffield Northern Hospital in June 2011, I discovered that reference to court case etc, was still to be found in my patient summary.”
	It seems clear to me that the advice of the Information Commissioner given in 2003 was not adhered to. The instruction was to remove that reference from her medical records in the practice and anywhere else where it might appear.
	I got involved with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on Mrs Barnes’s behalf and corresponded with the office in December 2012. The ombudsman had earlier refused to investigate the case until the medical practice had the opportunity potentially to offer Mrs Barnes some compensation. That did not materialise, for whatever reason. My understanding was that the insurers might have wanted to consider the case and decide whether to take any action. In a letter to me
	in December 2012, the ombudsman asked Mrs Barnes for further clarification in three areas. The first was whether she had considered taking a legal remedy and why she might not have chosen to do so. The second was the level of compensation she hoped to recover. The letter said:
	“The Ombudsman does not operate a tariff system and we are very much guided by what people hope to achieve. The levels of financial redress we may be able to recommend are modest when compared to sums that could be recovered by legal action and it is helpful for us to know whether we would be likely to meet the financial outcomes a complainant has expressed. This helps to ensure that they can be quickly directed to the most appropriate route to consider their concerns and helps to avoid complainants being dissatisfied at the outcomes we may be able to offer.”
	The third point related to how Mrs Barnes felt that she had suffered damage as a result of the practice’s failings.
	Mrs Barnes came back to me on this matter and we discussed in some detail how she should respond. In March 2013, I wrote to the assessor at the health service ombudsman saying that Mrs Barnes and I continued to be unhappy with the handling of her case. I reminded them that a letter I had received from them on 28 March 2012 stated that
	“the Ombudsman will not normally consider a complaint unless the NHS organisation concerned has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the complaint”.
	I then went on to say that in relation to their letter dated 11 December, Mrs Barnes did not wish to go down the legal route because of the potentially high costs involved.
	In relation to the ombudsman’s comment about the compensation that Mrs Barnes would wish to recover, as I have already pointed out, I said that
	“she cannot risk going down the legal route because of the cost. Consequently, she feels the only route she has open to her is to go through the Ombudsman”.
	I then said that I would appreciate it if they could be more specific about what level of financial redress they may be able to recommend if they were to settle the case for her. They told me that they had no tariff, which I quite understand.
	On the third point, I reiterated that Mrs Barnes had previously provided them with information on how she felt about the damage suffered as a result of the practice’s failings. It was not just the one incident; there were many other incidents in the letter that I received from Mrs Barnes at the time.
	Further correspondence took place between Mrs Barnes and the ombudsman, and in a letter to them, no doubt in her frustration, she said:
	“I refuse to involve clinical negligence solicitors due to my having taken legal action against a particular hospital in the past with no outcome.”
	Hence, presumably, the reference on her patient record. She went on to say:
	“The only people who seem to benefit from litigation are the solicitors themselves. I refuse to further fill their pockets and barristers’ pockets with taxpayers’ money.”
	That quote was used in a letter sent to me dated 18 June from the ombudsman’s office. Also in that letter it was stated:
	“Mr and Mrs Barnes complaint correspondence referred to a number of other interactions with NHS Care that did not involve the practice since around 1990 and were not part of our considerations”.
	That is an important point, and I agree with that. This complaint was about the issue of what was on Mrs Barnes’s medical record and how it may have been used by others if they had seen what was on that.
	After further correspondence, I received a letter from the director at the ombudsman’s office in August 2013 after a review had taken place about the action/inaction of the ombudsman’s decision not to progress the complaint. That letter stated that when I wrote to the ombudsman on 24 June 2013 I had said that Mrs Barnes was unhappy with the decision because she did not have the money to take the case to court. It was said that Mrs Barnes had previously told the ombudsman that she was not prepared to put money into the pockets of solicitors and barristers, but not, so far as I can see, that she could not afford to take legal action.
	The letter continued:
	“However, while a person’s ability to pay legal costs is relevant in cases such as this, it cannot be the sole factor. Mrs Barnes is seeking damages for personal injury that she says she has sustained at the hands of a number of clinicians over more than 20 years and her claim arises from an action for which the law provides a specific remedy. In the circumstances we agree with our original decision that the matter is properly for the courts and is not one we should investigate.”

Julian Lewis: This is a very complicated case and I just want to be sure that I understand exactly what the ombudsman is recommending. My understanding is that the ombudsman is recommending that a lady who has had a lot of trouble because she once previously went down the legal route should, instead of pursuing a complaint about that with the ombudsman, go down the legal route all over again. Have I got that right, or am I missing something?

Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What gets me about the last two letters more than anything else is the fact that they are completely contradictory. The first states:
	“Mr and Mrs Barnes’ complaint correspondence referred to a number of other interactions with NHS care that did not involve the Practice since around 1990 and were not part of our considerations”.
	The last letter basically states, “No, we aren’t going to pursue any action at all. We’re not going to look at it.” It then states—I am sorry to repeat this, but I think that it is important—that
	“Mrs Barnes is seeking damages for personal injury that she says she has sustained at the hands of a number of clinicians for more than 20 years”.
	They are completely contradictory.
	It seems to me that the parliamentary ombudsman, which is also taxpayer funded, has not only made contradictory statements, but handled Mrs Barnes’s case in a negative way. As we discussed when she and her husband visited my office, which they did on several occasions, this was not about what had or had not happened to her with the medical professional over the years; it was about what had been held on her personal records. In 2003 the Information Commissioner said that that was wrong and suggested it should be removed. We then found out that in 2010 the records were scooped back in again when they moved to another practice. I can only assume that the chief executive of NHS Rotherham did not know about the Information Commissioner’s decision at the time, because the second letter I received from the chief executive stated that it
	was more recent than he had been led to believe and that the records had been brought back from the new practice because they had just received information from the Information Commissioner that they had to change them.
	I am deeply concerned about the situation. My constituent has effectively been railroaded into a situation she does not want to be in, and that she should not have to be in. Indeed, the British taxpayer has been railroaded into a situation that I do not think it should be in. My constituent said, not with my blessing—I give it my blessing now, though—that far too many people are forced into litigation in this country, at taxpayers’ expense, rather than following common sense by sitting down, looking at the problem and deciding what should be done sensibly, rather than feeding the law courts.
	I have to tell the Minister that I am deeply disappointed that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman—I know that it is not directly a part of Government—can be run in that way and make those contradictory decisions. It seems to me that its decision is this: “We don’t have to do anything, so we’ll force her back to litigation if she does not want to go. That’s the end of the matter.” That cannot be correct, and I would like to know whether the Minister agrees.

Daniel Poulter: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) on securing the debate and commend him for all the work he has done on behalf of his constituent, and for the work he did in the previous Parliament, before I was a Member, as Chair of the Health Committee. I know that he has a long and distinguished record of fighting on health issues in the House, for his constituents and more generally. I also congratulate him on his recent knighthood. I am sure that the House will echo those congratulations.
	We can all agree that good-quality patient care is expected, regardless of which part of the country we live in, and that all patients should expect it. I pay tribute to the NHS staff in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency for the work that they do.
	I am sorry to hear about the difficulties that Mrs Barnes has experienced and that she is dissatisfied with the quality of the care she has received. It is never acceptable for a patient to receive anything less than the very best treatment and service from our NHS. However, I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate that the provision of local health care services is a matter for the NHS locally and that the Department of Health and Ministers do not play a role in directly investigating individual localised health care complaints, which should, quite rightly, be investigated without political interference to ensure that there is no question of bias. There is an NHS complaints procedure to resolve concerns and to help local NHS organisations to learn from the experiences of their patients. On the anniversary of the Mid Staffordshire scandal and the Francis inquiry, it is right that we reflect on the fact that we have to learn from things that have gone wrong in our health service and make sure we put them right for the benefit of future patients.
	I understand that, as the right hon. Gentleman outlines, Mrs Barnes has been pursuing this matter for many years and has made use of the NHS complaints system, up to and including the health service ombudsman, on
	a number of occasions. I also understand—this is an important point in the context of the ombudsman and other issues—that a number of the concerns that Mrs Barnes raises about her care relate to events involving non-NHS health care. I should make it clear that what I say relates to the NHS, and not to health care providers working outside the NHS with whom Mrs Barnes may have decided to undertake treatment.
	It is relevant at this stage to say a few words about how the ombudsman system works.

Kevin Barron: I accept, to some extent, the Minister’s point about the wider issues, which were not a matter of referral to the ombudsman. However, a constituent might often go to the private sector needing to get things done because they are in pain, for example, and might then see a consultant who they could also see under the NHS. Often the staff are the same people, and there is no great difference between the clinicians they meet. Does he agree with that?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is difficult, in terms of the care pathway, for any patient to draw these distinctions. However, the NHS complaints procedure relates to NHS care, and the ombudsman’s role is as a public sector ombudsman. That goes to the heart of some of the difficulties we are talking about.
	If a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint locally, they have the right to take it to the health service ombudsman, whose office was set up under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993. When complaints are escalated, it is important that they are investigated independently, free from the political process, to ensure that there is no question of bias. The health service ombudsman is completely independent of the Department of Health, the Government, and the NHS. It is therefore difficult for me to comment on the ombudsman’s decisions directly.
	If a complainant is dissatisfied with the ombudsman’s decision, they may make use of her own complaints process. The recourse open to anyone after the ombudsman has made a final decision is to seek a judicial review. During the entire complaints process, we assume that patients would take legal advice whenever they think it necessary. That is in their best interests and, in some cases, it is often important that patients have advice from a completely independent source.
	If, on the basis of the legal advice received, patients decide to commence legal action against the NHS, that is, of course, to be expected. The House will understand that I cannot comment on legal advice given to patients, including Mrs Barnes, as that is entirely a matter between the patient and her lawyer. Complaints about lawyers are not a matter for the Department of Health or the NHS, nor for this House to consider in this context. I am aware that Mrs Barnes has exhausted all the legal remedies open to her. Her case has been considered by a number of courts, including the Court of Appeal, and has on each occasion been rejected. It goes without saying that these matters will have been considered carefully by the various judges involved, and I should not and will not cast any doubt on their judgments.

Julian Lewis: I was not familiar with this case until I heard it outlined in such detail, but as I understand it the pointed issue is not about the merits or otherwise of
	this lady’s original arguments with the health service. I think I am right in saying that the only pointed issue is that the Information Commissioner’s Office directed that certain data should be removed from the record. They were not and she complained to the ombudsman, who does not seem to want to say whether it was right that they were left on her record or whether they ought to have been removed.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend will be aware that patients have open access to their records and can request to see them, but it is not for a patient forcibly to remove relevant clinical information from them. I am not sure whether that was the case in these particular circumstances, but I hope to be able to reassure the right hon. Member for Rother Valley.
	It is worth pointing out that, during the long line of litigation, in 2007 Mr Justice Simon said, following a hearing, that
	“this is not a case of professional conspiracies by the medical or legal professions; it is a case where the balance of the evidence before the Court fell decisively and conclusively in favour of the defendant”,
	meaning the NHS. There is a long history of legal rulings that make that point clearly. Indeed, I understand that the NHS Litigation Authority obtained cost orders in its favour for that case, although it was unable to recover its costs. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I shall look into the issues he has raised about the ombudsman and the Information Commissioner and write to him about them.

Kevin Barron: I appreciate that. I know that there is some history to the case of Mrs Barnes, but in my humble view—I understand that the ombudsman and politicians should not get mixed up—this specific issue is not about what happened in the courts. It is about what did or did not happen at the request of the Information Commissioner. My reading of the situation is that it could have been managed and handled by the health service ombudsman and compensation could have been paid. In my view, the ombudsman sat back, possibly because of the history to which the Minister
	has just referred, and thought, “It’s got to go to litigation and that’s it.” When other avenues were closed off, the ombudsman’s office could have managed the situation, but it seems to me that it backed off, looked at the whole history of the case of Mrs Barnes and said that it had to go to litigation. I think that is unfair and that the ombudsman’s office could have handled things much better and smarter on behalf of my constituent.

Daniel Poulter: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have committed to looking further into the issue and to writing to him, and I hope that will reassure him further about the processes that have been followed in this case.
	As I said at the outset, I am very sorry to hear that Mrs Barnes is unhappy at the care and treatment she has received from the NHS. I am also aware that, over the years, she has been seen and treated in a private capacity on a number of occasions, which, as we have discussed, complicates the issues, because it can make it difficult to establish whether the responsibility sits with the NHS—as part of either the ombudsman’s process or the NHS complaints procedure—or elsewhere. Her case has also been considered by the courts on a number of occasions and I have alluded to their conclusions.
	I understand that Mrs Barnes made full use of the various NHS complaints processes, but remains dissatisfied, which we have discussed in detail today. Accordingly, she has involved the health ombudsman, but the outcome has not been as she would have wished.
	As I have said—this is worth repeating—the ombudsman is independent of Ministers, the Department of Health and the Government. An option open to anyone dissatisfied with the ombudsman’s actions is judicial review, but it is not to be embarked on lightly and those considering doing so should ensure that they take legal advice.
	I wish Mrs Barnes well and I appreciate the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and his strong advocacy of her case.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.